Three wise former gays

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Matthew 7
12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

With that in mind, you should ask yourself what harm a homosexual couple in a loving, caring relationship does to anyone else. You should also ask yourself if you would have others coerce or otherwise force you out of your sex ...[text shortened]... used by promotion of the homosexual unions.
Add this to my so-called tangential replies above.

1 and 2 id be interested to know what you mean by 'harm'.

3 is petty beyond belief, do you consider all things that cost governments money as harmful or just ones that you already have an agenda against?

4 just shows a lack of education and logic. can you explain on what basis you drew your conclusion?

Well 1 through 4 are all wrong... ['/quote]

My younger brother died of HIV infection in the gay community in San Fransisco.

[quote]
But I find 4 especially note-worthily wrong.

It is factually incorrect to say that children raised by same sex parents are harmed in any way.

Would you have preferred that you had been raised with two men as fathers who were sexually involved with each other ? This is assuming that you came from a traditional two parent male / female family.

If you do not prefer that that had been your upbringing, what disadvantage do you expect you would have had ?

Study after study has shown that what matters is having loving parents.

Let's think back to say the early 1950s. Study after study confirms just what the cigarette industry wants everyone to believe. Cigarette smoking is good for your health. It helps digestion, for example. And it is recommended that you light up for a smoke after dinner.

Study after study sometimes tells people what they want to hear.

Their gender and sexual orientation are irrelevant.

Gender, use to be a term used in linguistics to determine if a word was masculine of feminine. That distinction was pretty arbitrary. The word "gender" has evolved to basically mean the same thing as sex.

So now one sounds odd if he doesn't use the word "gender" in this discussion. However, I still find the word sex to be adequate to express the distinction.

I guess to be more more up to date sounding I could use gender..

But if every tendency and urge gets promoted to be an "orientation" we will be in trouble.

On what basis would you tell a person who claims an "orientation" to have sex with his mother (and she is consenting), that he is wrong ? Or would you condone his desire ? Or would you endorse the government encouragement of his desire through requiring your tax dollars to provide benefits to support his lifestyle ?

3 is petty beyond belief, do you consider all things that cost governments money as harmful or just ones that you already have an agenda against?

No, I do not believe that ALL things which cost governments money are harmful. That would be ridiculous of course.

Problems for which much of society will have to cope with at great cost are the problems of youths not raised in traditional two parent male / female families.

If we make marriage only about coupling then people will get married more and more disregarding the function of marriage of providing stable raising environment for children. That is A Man and A Woman as the best tried and true arragement.

Two men coupled or two women coupled as parents is inferior. It may not be totally bad. But it is inferior. Why not promote what is superior ?

The unit of the man / woman family is natural governmental arrangement that is best for the civilization of young human beings. If this function is undermined in favor of making marriage only about coupling, we will do harm to the best institution for raising young men and women.

Marriage is not only about love. It is about commitment for the stabilization of the best children raising environment. It is true that not all couples can have children. However, in principle, they are in the best child raising arrangement.

We will do damage to the institution of marriage if we make in solely about coupling to people, ANY two people. We will have changed the definition which ought to be strengthened rather than discarded.

What is being demanded now by homosexual activists is government endorsement. I think it is beyond the request for permission. It is the need for promotion of same sex coupling in "marriages" which then call for obligatory financial support from society in the form of tax revenue.

4 just shows a lack of education and logic. can you explain on what basis you drew your conclusion?

I would have to go back and see what # 4 is. Can't recall without re-reading how I numbered things.

Originally posted by sonship

Well 1 through 4 are all wrong... ['/quote]

My younger brother died of HIV infection in the gay community in San Fransisco.

[quote]
But I find 4 especially note-worthily wrong.

It is factually incorrect to say that children raised by same sex parents are harmed in any way.

Would you have [b]preferred that you had been ...[text shortened]... of his desire through requiring your tax dollars to provide benefits to support his lifestyle ?[/b]

so much common sense and decency, thank you, you have restored my faith in humanity!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my tax collecting atheistic money laundering prostitute friends are welcome, what about yours?

they are welcome to come and receive your abuse? what kind of welcome is that? make up your mind.

Originally posted by sonship

3 is petty beyond belief, do you consider all things that cost governments money as harmful or just ones that you already have an agenda against?

No, I do not believe that ALL things which cost governments money are harmful. That would be ridiculous of course.

Problems for which much of society will have to cope with at great co ...[text shortened]... ould have to go back and see what # 4 is. Can't recall without re-reading how I numbered things.

can you explain what qualities a man doesnt have that women do in regards to parenting and vise-versa. whilst doing so can you also be mindful that all men are different as so are all women and therefore can you do it avoiding using stereotypical language. unless of course you believe only men and women who fit the stereotype can be good parents.

Originally posted by Suzianne
they are welcome to come and receive your abuse? what kind of welcome is that? make up your mind.

lucky for you i can take your bitchiness!

Originally posted by sonship

Well 1 through 4 are all wrong...

My younger brother died of HIV infection in the gay community in San Fransisco.

But I find 4 especially note-worthily wrong.

It is factually incorrect to say that children raised by same sex parents are harmed in any way.

Would you have [b]preferred that you had been raise ...[text shortened]... of his desire through requiring your tax dollars to provide benefits to support his lifestyle ?[/b]

"Well 1 through 4 are all wrong... "

My younger brother died of HIV infection in the gay community in San Fransisco.

Well ok but HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that is a problem for everyone, and is not a gay specific problem.
His problem wasn't being gay, or having gay sex, it was having sex with someone who had HIV. The gender of the
person with HIV was irrelevant.

"But I find 4 especially note-worthily wrong.

It is factually incorrect to say that children raised by same sex parents are harmed in any way."

Would you have preferred that you had been raised with two men as fathers who were sexually involved with each other ? This is assuming that you came from a traditional two parent male / female family.

If you do not prefer that that had been your upbringing, what disadvantage do you expect you would have had ?

I love my parents, I think they are great, and wouldn't have any others.

But that's because they are awesome parents, and I grew up with them as my parents. Of course I wouldn't prefer
to have any other parents, regardless of the proposed replacement parents genders or sexual orientation.

You are asking the wrong question.

The right question is whether I would have a problem with having been raised by same sex parents a priori.
And the answer is no. As long as those parents are loving and kind, and generally good parents, then their
gender is irrelevant.

Study after study has shown that what matters is having loving parents.

Let's think back to say the early 1950s. Study after study confirms just what the cigarette industry wants everyone to believe. Cigarette smoking is good for your health. It helps digestion, for example. And it is recommended that you light up for a smoke after dinner.

Study after study sometimes tells people what they want to hear.

This is not one of those times.

"Their gender and sexual orientation are irrelevant."

Gender, use to be a term used in linguistics to determine if a word was masculine of feminine. That distinction was pretty arbitrary. The word "gender" has evolved to basically mean the same thing as sex.

So now one sounds odd if he doesn't use the word "gender" in this discussion. However, I still find the word sex to be adequate to express the distinction.

I guess to be more more up to date sounding I could use gender..

But if every tendency and urge gets promoted to be an "orientation" we will be in trouble.

On what basis would you tell a person who claims an "orientation" to have sex with his mother (and she is consenting), that he is wrong ? Or would you condone his desire ? Or would you endorse the government encouragement of his desire through requiring your tax dollars to provide benefits to support his lifestyle ?

You are committing [among other things] the slippery slope fallacy. It is utterly and completely irrelevant as to whether or
not incest is morally or legally acceptable or healthy ect for the purposes of a discussion about whether or not gay parents
are harmful to their children. And I am not going down irrelevant blind alleys in this discussion. If you want to discuss that
then start a new thread, but it's utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by googlefudge

[b] "Well 1 through 4 are all wrong... "

My younger brother died of HIV infection in the gay community in San Fransisco.

Well ok but HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that is a problem for everyone, and is not a gay specific problem.
His problem wasn't being gay, or having gay sex, it was having sex with someone who had HIV. ...[text shortened]... is desire through requiring your tax dollars to provide benefits to support his lifestyle ? [/quote]

You are committing [among other things] the slippery slope fallacy.

I don't think I am employing any slippery slope fallacy that you yourself are not concerned with given the implications of some of the things you fear would get out of hand.

Ideas have consequences. We cannot always naively assume ideas will have no further consequences down the road of time. We should not always dismiss the following through of rationals with a "slippery slope fallacy" reason.

Every urge, desire, inclination that comes into people's minds cannot be promoted to just an "orientation" to be endorsed.

As we speak, as we sit here and write, there is a professor in an North Carolina University who advocates human / animal sex. That is not a country hick in the back woods of Appalachia. That is an educated academic of a prestigious American university.

YouTubes exist exposing such practices. Do not so quickly assume movements cannot develop from other kinds of "orientation" claims of sexual desire. Maybe a "slope" is actually there.

What makes you so arrogant to assume another person cannot claim an "orientation" according to his or her kind of craving ?

It is utterly and completely irrelevant as to whether or
not incest is morally or legally acceptable or healthy ect for the purposes of a discussion about whether or not gay parents
are harmful to their children. And I am not going down irrelevant blind alleys in this discussion. If you want to discuss that
then start a new thread, but it's utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

If you raise the objection of "slippery slope" I don't see me committing any fallacy that you yourself would not [edited] voice should self control not be advocated also among people repulsed by homosexuality.

In fact your very argument with my post exposes your own concern for a "slippery slope" of many people growing into intolerant vigilante groups. That is probably why you are confronting me, to limit the influence and number of people who disagree with trends of homosexual activism.

Well ok but HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that is a problem for everyone, and is not a gay specific problem.

No, it is not just "ok" to me. He was persuaded and preyed upon with eloquent arguments. Now he is gone. He helped others in their last days. Then his time came around.

I did not say that causes for such deviation should not be sought out if something could have been done in the family to help him.

Nor do I say that every case of HIV is because of homosexuality.
But in his case, it was. And it was a slow agonizing departure.

We didn't talk about it. An adult has to take consequences for his choices.

His problem wasn't being gay, or having gay sex, it was having sex with someone who had HIV.

You are of little help and of less comfort.
You are so eager to make moral dung look like moral icecream that you cannot think soberly about what destroyed my brother's life.

Thanks, It was not the homosexual sex. It was the homosexual sex with some "loving" person who spread AIDS into him.

This is not love. This is "I want what I want what I want!! And if it kills someone, he should have made another decision to be involved. It is on the other person and not me."

The gender of the
person with HIV was irrelevant.

The guys who murdered Allen Shepherd ? Would you also argue that it was not their hatred of the gay man but just their hot tempers ? That's all then? There should be no fear of gay bashing and bullying vigilante gangs?

The attitude of the men toward homosexuals was irrelevant ?
You cannot disregard connections where they actually exist.

The extreme can be drifted into on either side. That is the assumption that there was no relevancy of HIV effected man's activities, on one side, and the jumping to the opposite extreme that HIV can not be spread by any other way.

I love my parents, I think they are great, and wouldn't have any others.

But that's because they are awesome parents, and I grew up with them as my parents. Of course I wouldn't prefer to have any other parents, regardless of the proposed replacement parents genders or sexual orientation.

But I don't think you would regard you father as that "awesome" had he pointed to his male lover and told you to think of that other man as your mother or other parent.

Then you might grow up very confused.

You are asking the wrong question.

The right question is whether I would have a problem with having been raised by same sex parents a priori.
And the answer is no. As long as those parents are loving and kind, and generally good parents, then their
gender is irrelevant.

When a young boy needs a female as a mother, what is so loving and kind about referring him to a man ?

This is like me being "loving and kind" by encouraging a lonely person seeking marriage to go get himself a manikin. And doing it with a straight face telling him that here, with this plastic statue, he may find a suitable spouse.

It is artificial. And I think a child's longing for a male father is best served by providing one. Less humane would be to refer him to another woman to think of as his "father".

I would say that if you do not want the burden of raising a child in a normal father / mother family unit then why burden some child. That is saddling them with the psychological somersaults they will have to put their little minds through to understand your social experiment ?

Originally posted by sonship

Well ok but HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that is a problem for everyone, and is not a gay specific problem.

No, it is not just "ok" to me. He was persuaded and preyed upon with eloquent arguments. Now he is gone. He helped others in their last days. Then his time came around.

I did not say that causes for such deviation s ...[text shortened]... ersaults they will have to put their little minds through to understand your social experiment ?

You asked a question and I answered it.

I wouldn't change my parents for the world because they were my loving parents who I grew up with.

Had I grown up with gay or lesbian parents who were as good and loving I would feel the same about them.



What you think is both wrong and irrelevant.

You asked me the question and that is my answer.


And all the evidence indicates that children with loving same sex parents do just as well, and are as well adjusted
as children with opposite sex parents.


All you have is ignorant, false, and bigoted emotional drivel.

You are factually wrong. Get over it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lucky for you i can take your bitchiness!

And me, yours, sweetie. It's stupid I have a bigger problem with.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
can you explain what qualities a man doesnt have that women do in regards to parenting and vise-versa. whilst doing so can you also be mindful that all men are different as so are all women and therefore can you do it avoiding using stereotypical language. unless of course you believe only men and women who fit the stereotype can be good parents.

"avoiding stereotypical language"

Yeah, good luck with that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And me, yours, sweetie. It's stupid I have a bigger problem with.

You can pray for wisdom to make up for what has been insufficiently supplied by nature.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You asked a question and I answered it.

I wouldn't change my parents for the world because they were my loving parents who I grew up with.

Had I grown up with gay or lesbian parents who were as good and loving I would feel the same about them.



What you think is both wrong and irrelevant.

You asked me the question and that is my answer.
...[text shortened]... have is ignorant, false, and bigoted emotional drivel.

You are factually wrong. Get over it.

a child with same sex parents risks absolute stigmatization, especially with two dudes and no matter how politically correct your namby pamby liberal ideas are, they will get ripped at school making their life an absolute misery. When will you realise that the natural order of male and female is the ultimate and to deny a child this loving arrangement is a deprivation.