Homosexual Marriage

[Anmon]

=Tycoon;498926]Should we let parents abuse or starve their children simply because it's their house?

Thats different, thats physically hurting them for no reason.

Parents have no reason to be ashamed or embarassed simply because their children are a little different. Society needs to begin accepting homosexuality, and the first step towards that is gay pride and gay events.

No, thats what you think it needs, would you like me to go into your home and tell you what you need?

What kind of parent throws their children out because of a little embarassment? Or because of shame? They are obviously misinformed and blinded by society. This needs to change.

No, I think there has been enough damaging social engineering as it is, without you goose stepping into a persons house outraged at what they want in their own home, sorry but thats just fascism your preaching now.

[Winter wind]

What post?

Quote by: me It wouldn't matter if I did win the debate, thats hardly going to change your views for gay marriage. The reason you support gay marriage is because you know it will help to ruin western society. Yes anmon, we want to destroy western society. We just hate it. I mean we only live there to throw rocks at it. Quote: Again, I am bringing in the 'pedosexual' argument as they are starting to climb on the same bandwagon you guys got on with civil rights. Its not a comparison with homosexuals wanting to marry. They have recently won a legal battle in court with the ACLU defending their views as freedom of speech. Like it or not, this is something that you cant pretend is not happening, they are following the same path as you guys, they have also been helped along it by GSLEN. NAMBLA Exposed! Linda P. Harvey -- The Risk of 'Gay' Activism in Our Schools One, Nambla is a joke. No one takes their views seriously. Two, Nambla is tommorow's problem. Gay marriage is our focus. We will fight Nambla separately. In another debate.

That was the post

[Anmon]

Later, I'm going to watch world war I in colour on Foxtel

[Winter wind]

Later, I'm going to watch world war I in colour on Foxtel

The post anmon. the post. Before Matt W yells at you.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Winter wind The post anmon. the post. Before Matt W yells at you.

I will Winterwind, but you deserve at thoughtfull answer in the debate, not just chat, so some research first ok.

[Matt W]

Ah, this gets better & better....

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Gay marriage around the globe

LGBT rights in Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gay rights in Denmark are generally extensive, and Danish society is very tolerant of homosexuality. The left-of-centre political parties—Enhedslisten, the Socialist People's Party, the Social Democrats, and the Danish Social Liberal Party—support gay rights, while the right-of-centre parties are more sceptical. The civil union law was, however, enacted under a conservative-led government, but during a period in which the Danish Social Liberal Party was also part of the government.

Same-sex marriage in Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-sex marriage in Spain was legalized in 2005. In 2004, the nation's newly elected Socialist government, led by President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, began a campaign for its legalization, which would include adoption by same-sex couples.[1] After much debate, a law permitting same-sex marriage was passed by the Cortes Generales (Spain's bicameral parliament, composed of the Senate and the Congress of Deputies) on 30 June 2005 and published on 2 July 2005. Same-sex marriage officially became legal in Spain on Sunday, 3 July 2005.[2]

This shows how gay marriage is supported by a variety of people - not just Socialists. Would you care to refrain from ranting about 'the left' and 'the evils of socialism' now? And put forward a reasoned argument against gay marriage?

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Anmon From wiki- read and learn "Finland is a Republic with a representative democracy governed according to the principles of parliamentarism. Legislative power is vested in the Parliament of Finland. Executive affairs of government are decided by the Council of State, which is led by the prime minister. Some matters are decided by the President of Finland in plenary meetings with the Council of State, echoing the constitutional history of a Privy Council. The President of the Republic is otherwise not present in the Council, but decides on issues like personal appointments and pardons on the advice of the relevant minister. In the ministries, matters of secondary importance are decided by individual ministers, advised by the minister's State Secretary. The Prime Minister and the other ministers in the Council of State are responsible for their actions in office to the Parliament of Finland." [edit] Head of Government Main article: Prime Minister of Finland Head of Government: Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (since 2003) Council of State: Ministers are appointed by the President upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and confirmed by Parliament Elections: The Prime Minister designate is appointed by the President of Finland and then confirmed by Parliament Election results: Matti Vanhanen was elected Prime Minister in June 2003, continuing the coalition government between the Centre Party (KESK), the Social Democrats (SDP), and the Swedish People's Party, which was established by his predecessor following the General Election in 2003. In 2007, following the election victory of National Coalition Party, Center Party formed a coalition government with the National Coalition, Swedish People's Party and the Green League, Matti Vanhanen continuing as the Prime Minister. Does that sound like a socialist government to you? And um the UK may have legalised it, but that doesnt mean its the government of England. He did say Scandinavians, and Finns are considered Scandinavian.

Your first mistake with this post is quoting Wikipedia, half of it is sabotaged and is banned from higher education citation for a reason.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Anmon Thats different, thats physically hurting them for no reason. No, thats what you think it needs, would you like me to go into your home and tell you what you need? No, I think there has been enough damaging social engineering as it is, without you goose stepping into a persons house outraged at what they want in their own home, sorry but thats just fascism your preaching now.

Haha, fascism, you honestly think that informing people with the right information so as they see the error of their discrimination is fascism? If we were to command or brainwash people into accepting homosexuals that would be an element of facism, but informing and educating people is far from it you'll find.

[yourmaster]

For whoever linked NARTH a while back to try and persuade us that homosexuality was not fixed and that people can change sexuality.
Not cited because it's from a good friend of mine who's studying psychology, very true none the less.

The femininity of homosexuals hypothesis, much like the Biblical interpretations upon which NARTH base their "therapy", is an out-dated myth disproven by real science. A study on the viability of increased testosterone [the male sex hormone] as a potential "treatment" completely backfired (Barahal, H. 1940):


Seven psychotic male homosexuals were treated with testosterone propionate. Some stimulation of secondary sex characteristics and increase of libido were observed, but there was no change in the direction of libido, homosexual activity being increased. Little or no change was noticed in mental condition. These results are considered as supporting the psychoanalytic view of bisexual constitution, with the amount of gonadal hormone present in the blood merely determining the force of libido rather than the direction.


That they were psychotic was a reflection of the times: the only psychological studies done on people were done on homosexuals who were in prison, or already seeking therapy (self-selecting samples for the loss).

The study that was to show that homosexuals were more girly is yet to be replicated (Barlow, D. et al., 1974):


Compared the plasma testosterone values for 15 15-35 yr old male homosexuals of Kinsey rating 5 or 6 with the values reported by R. C. Kolodny et al (see record 1972-11202-001), who had found male homosexuals to have lower testosterone values than heterosexuals. The values for the present Ss were significantly higher than those reported by Kolodny et al. In fact, the mean values for the current sample did not differ from the mean value reported by Kolodny et al for heterosexual (Kinsey rating 0 or 1) controls. The present findings thus fail to confirm the relation between degree of homosexuality and plasma testosterone level.

The thing with the way the site has presented the family patterns hypothesis, the same-sex playmate distance/opposite-sex playmate bonding dynmaic, the distant father hypothesis and the gender confusion hypothesis... it's the least scientific way to go about it.


Conversely, for the child who will develop a homosexual orientation, this process does not happen. So, what happens in the development of gender identity that would lead a child to have same-sex attractions? Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn't have a father or a father figure, or he doesn't have a father who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming. Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers and yet do not develop a homosexual orientation. In addition, there are many children who have loving fathers, yet still become homosexually oriented. This is due to the fact that there are various factors that contribute to a homosexual orientation. Human development is very complex and includes events, as well as perceptions about the events.


When you don't have a reliable correlation, you don't just acknowledge it, say "humans are complex" then continue to say that your unreliable correlation is factual explanada for the phenomenon. Even if you allow the logical fallacy of using correlation to induct causation, which in many psychological issues can't be avoided, the counterexamples are there [athletic homosexuals, homosexuals with good fatherly relationships, homosexuals with a strong sense of male identity] and haven't been explained in terms of their theory of homosexuality.

James Feinberg and Roger Bakeman studied the family patterns of two samples of 25: one homosexual, one heterosexual (1994). This is what real scientists do. They don't just say what they think and write articles on the web that say "humans are complex, but not too complex, since I can tell you factors that cause homosexuality without even conducting studies to back it up!". They go out there and measure reality. Because that's what science is about, amirite?


Examined the relationship between generational family patterns and sexual orientation in 25 heterosexual and 25 homosexual adult men. Focus was on distance in relationships between Ss and their fathers and mothers and between Ss' parents and Ss' grandparents, severed relationships, multiple generational patterns of social isolation, participation in "overinvolved" relationships, marital problems between Ss' parents, and relationship triangles consisting of Ss and their parents. Analysis of genograms reveals that more than twice as many parents of homosexual Ss had marital problems as did parents of heterosexual Ss. Almost twice as many heterosexual Ss had distant relationships with their fathers, compared with homosexual Ss and their fathers. Overall, there were more similarities than differences for families of homosexual and heterosexual males.

Funnily enough, heaps more heterosexuals had distant relationships with their fathers than homosexual. Now, so as not to fall into the same trap as the people way above me, I know we can't say that heterosexuality is caused by distance to the father.

What I can say, is that it makes no sense to think that homosexuality is caused by something that is more likely in non-homosexuals. It's like saying that wearing a red shirt is a causal factor in skin cancer and blue-shirtedness isn't when twice as many blue-shirt-wearers get cancer every year.

But hey, if their goal isn't to objectively study homosexuals (where are the peer-reviewed studies, NARTH?), what is their goal? I just have to look in the thread to see it, and it being accomplished well.




It gets a few all-encompassing things that people kinda accept will cause homosexuality (some, like having a distant father that are contrary to the science as shown above) and throws it up there for kids struggling to find the cause for this thing that makes them so different to lap up and diminish their instinctual belief in sexuality as representative of who they are.

"I had significantly fewer female friends than male growing up."

"I had significantly greater female friends than male growing up."

The second statement is the one that is the alleged cause of homosexuality, but I've heard just as often that having no or few female friends during childhood is a possible cause of homosexuality; since the boy must have at some point been rejected in some way by some girl, obviously the whole heterosexual attraction thing got a spanner in the works. The boy finds safety in homosexual attractions since they identify better with other males (which completely contradicts the "oh, I don't identify with my father, or any other males, so I became a homosexual oh noes!" hypothesis of f**kSTUPID), ergo gay.

I read it at 14, believed it, started questioning whether my homosexuality really is a disorder with clear, distinct causes.

But do you see how this works now?

The main theory of homosexual attraction of Christian converter websites- regardless of whether they say it, since these principles are their basis for therapy- is the following.


That homosexual attraction can be divided into two classes. The first, with qualities that the homosexual shares with the attractee, an externalised Narcissism. The second, with qualities that the homosexual does not share with the attractee, a manifestation of the desire to have those qualities and the otherwise unexpressable insecurity that comes from that desire.

Look at the three 'reverse change' stories and the way the attractions of the first and last example are "reduced" to the above catch-all. The second one isn't even homosexuality, since the feelings were only sexual - the only deep feelings were for his wife. Even still, I doubt they've actually happened, or if they did that the people in question still aren't attracted to homosexuals. The APA challenged NARTH and a few other ex-gay ministries (as opposed to clinics; I make an important distinction here) some time ago to produced follow-up records of 'treated' people, and where records actually were kept (seldom), you could count on one hand the total number who didn't go back to what they were (known to someone who thinks of homosexuality as an illness as a "relapse").

Okay, now think about this 'one or the other' dynamic here. For every single quality you could possibly find attractive in another person, same or opposite sex, it's either something you have or something you don't. There's a convenient catch-all "explanation" that essentially means f**k all, since there are zero studies that manage to successfully find correlations of homosexual attraction with Narcissistic tendencies or self-image insecurity.

Not only is it an explanation that only works in hindsight, it doesn't force a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. If one views homosexuals in this way, they are forced to with heterosexuality lest they contradict themselves (but this is a particular brand of Christian that never seems to mind contradicting themself ).

[Tycoon]

Thats different, thats physically hurting them for no reason.

And throwing them out of the house doesn't have the same effect?

No, thats what you think it needs, would you like me to go into your home and tell you what you need?

You're already coming into my home and telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to marry. Homosexuality shouldn't have to come into your home and tell you what to do. If you just treated homosexuals as equals then this wouldn't be happening.

No, I think there has been enough damaging social engineering as it is, without you goose stepping into a persons house outraged at what they want in their own home, sorry but thats just fascism your preaching now.

It's not fascism at all. You can't associate something like this with a bad system of government and expect anybody to agree with you. Like I said, should we let parents abuse or starve their children just because it's their house?

Also, you never directly answered my question. Do you approve of parents throwing out their children simply because they are homosexual?

All I want is a yes or a no.

[Anmon]

=Tycoon;499183]And throwing them out of the house doesn't have the same effect?

No. They are free to go where they like.

You're already coming into my home and telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to marry. Homosexuality shouldn't have to come into your home and tell you what to do. If you just treated homosexuals as equals then this wouldn't be happening.

Telling you my views on the internet is not the same as physically coming into your house and doing so.
For me that would be a big breech of manners and courtesy.

It's not fascism at all. You can't associate something like this with a bad system of government and expect anybody to agree with you.

It is fascism, you are telling people what to think and do, against their will.

Like I said, should we let parents abuse or starve their children just because it's their house?

Of course not, their kids man.

Also, you never directly answered my question. Do you approve of parents throwing out their children simply because they are homosexual?

Yes, its their house.
You could throw someone out of your house for being heterosexual, and no one would bat an eyelid.

[Tycoon]

No. They are free to go where they like.

Are you seriously suggesting that teenagers or children are ready to handle the full responsibilities of life on their own? That is ridiculous. Throwing them out on the street gives them unimaginable hardships and almost no chance of future success.

Telling you my views on the internet is not the same as physically coming into your house and doing so. For me that would be a big breech of manners and courtesy.

You're the one who made the comparison to people coming into your house and forcing you to accept homosexuality in the first place. Gay pride events and marches are not actually physically coming into your house, are they?

It is fascism, you are telling people what to think and do, against their will.

If I believed blacks were inferior could I start enslaving them? No. People have to be told what to think every now and then, and even if they don't come to accept homosexuality the rights of homosexuals still need to be protected.

Yes, its their house.

Do you think it's the right decision for any parent to make though? Regardless of their right to throw their children out.

[yourmaster]

I find it comical and partly tragic that you think it should be allowed for a parent to evict their own child onto the street on the grounds that they are part of a minority against their choice.
It's discrimination at it's very worst and only has negative effects on society, you've been ranting on about the downfall of society, well this, throwing a teenage child onto the streets, this benefits anybody how? All that comes out of it is a scarred and homeless child with very little chances of success and contribution to society.
This is not taking into account the health and security of a young homosexual wishing to come out to his parents, how exactly does fear of exile from his own parents benefit him? This kind of discrimination and fear has spread destruction across the homosexual community for too long and must be stopped.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: anmon I will Winterwind, but you deserve at thoughtfull answer in the debate, not just chat, so some research first ok.

I don't mean to rush you, but are you really going to respond?

[Anmon]

Quote by: Winter wind I don't mean to rush you, but are you really going to respond?

Yeah, I'll get to it W don't worry.
Still gathering my thoughts, and you deserve the best response possible.

[Anmon]

=yourmaster;499512]you've been ranting on about the downfall of society,

hardly, I'm pointing out the obvious, you guys are living in some kind of dream land that doesn't want to see or acknowledge it.

And of course you paint the worse scene possible for your poor little gay hero here if getting thrown out.
Of course he would never just move in with his gay mates somewhere else would he?
From my experience, there are not many street casualties from being tossed out of home for being gay.
Most of the kids I talked to were on the streets because of mental issues.
Not because they were gay.
I think if someone came out and said they were gay, most parents would be fine with it, but if the kid then proceeded to throw gay issues into their faces, and try to indoctrinate them into accepting the life style, and bringing other gays into the house, then the parents if not wanting that would be justified in telling the gay kid to move out.
Take it somewhere else, not in our home.
Get it?

[Tycoon]

Of course he would never just move in with his gay mates somewhere else would he?

We don't all have gay mates who are ready and waiting to take responsibility for us.

From my experience, there are not many street casualties from being tossed out of home for being gay.

Casualties? Probably not. But it creates enormous hardships for any teenager and almost completely eliminates any possibility for success in one's life.

Most of the kids I talked to were on the streets because of mental issues. Not because they were gay.

And you talk to homeless kids often? I gave you a statistic, and I stand by it.

I think if someone came out and said they were gay, most parents would be fine with it, but if the kid then proceeded to throw gay issues into their faces, and try to indoctrinate them into accepting the life style, and bringing other gays into the house, then the parents if not wanting that would be justified in telling the gay kid to move out.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? When a teenager comes out to their parents as gay they're not trying to push some agenda, they're probably shaking like hell and sweating all over the place. They're not pushing some agenda, it's a big deal for them.

Take it somewhere else, not in our home.

It's THEIR HOMES that THEY are being thrown out of, not YOURS.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: anmon Still gathering my thoughts, and you deserve the best response possible.

You flatter me

[tommy5x]

Yah, WW isn't worth that

[Winter wind]

Quote by: tommy5x Yah, WW isn't worth that

ouch.