The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

MrPudding wrote: »

Interestingly it looks like New Jersey is planning a similar ban...

Also, the WHO don't like conversion therapy. But what do they know? Right?

http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

MrP

Its all political Mr P, so I certainly wouldn't take any acronym on face value. What I know, is that there are some people who feel that their sexual desires have skewed them away from allowing them to fulfill their biological potential and some that attest to therapy that has helped them overcome what they see as a disability of sorts. Most seem to be happy to have these desires, and good luck to them, but its not very tolerant or understanding that those who don't share the view that its all A-OK should be banned from seeing if there is a root cause of what they see as their skewed sexual desire that can be discovered and subsequently treated.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its all political Mr P, so I certainly wouldn't take any acronym on face value. What I know, is that there are some people who feel that their sexual desires have skewed them away from allowing them to fulfill their biological potential and some that attest to therapy that has helped them overcome what they see as a disability of sorts. Most seem to be happy to have these desires, and good luck to them, but its not very tolerant or understanding that those who don't share the view that its all A-OK should be banned from seeing if there is a root cause of what they see as their skewed sexual desire that can be discovered and subsequently treated.

I don't know, to be honest. There is undoubtedly some politics behind it, maybe even a lot, but I don't necessarily think that is sinister. Human nature, and society is a funny thing, it is very hard to get the balance right, in the past, whilst you might not agree, society swung very much against gay people. There is a correction happening, perhaps you see it as having swung too far the other way...? I don't, personally, though I could understand that someone might.

I have known a few gay people, and yes, some are sad that they won't be able to have their own kids, but most of the troubles they faced, and the things that got them down were due to how society, or sections of society made them feel.

Things like gay marriage and same sex adoption help people to feel more of a part of society. Perhaps if people stopped telling them they were broken and gave them the same rights as "unbroken" people there would be no need for "therapy" of this nature.

MrP

JimiTime wrote: »

Except that some attest to changing/being 'cured'. From all the reading I've done, and contrary to popular belief, homosexuality does not seem to have one cause. No gene or whatever. It seems that it can have different causes in different people. With this in mind, I think it reasonable for a person to try discover if it was caused by something environmental, such as lack of paternal relationship etc, as some have attested to.

The problem is this is based on the assumption that being gay is an on or off thing. I could claim I have been cured, I'm married to an opposite sex partner and happily I better add (in case she reads this:P) I could just as easily been happily 'married to a same sex partner. don't mean I'm 'cured' any more than any married man is cured of finding others attractive.
Sexuality is more of a sliding scale than we would admit.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm married to an opposite sex partner and happily I better add (in case she reads this:P) I could just as easily been happily 'married to a same sex partner

Sadly Tommy this is not the case, because gay marriage is illegal.

I know that the group mentioned in the following news report is biased but as it's part of the story of the Gay Marriage debate, I'll post it. It refer's to a section of the Church of Ireland.

Quote; Changing Attitude Ireland (CAI), the Anglican Church of Ireland’s pro-gay group, has made a submission to the Irish Constitutional Convention in support of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples.

The convention is examining equal marriage, along with other key issues, in a year-long consultation exercise.

CAI stated in its submission that it “strongly supports the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples. CAI views the existing inequalities between civil partnership and civil marriage as having a real world detrimental impact on the lives of same-sex couples, and even more on children being raised by them.

“We call for churches and other faith groups to be allowed ‘opt in’ to registering same-sex marriages, while protecting them from any attempt at compulsion, as this is the best way to respect the religious freedoms of both those who support and those who oppose same-sex marriage.”

It added: “This is particularly important in the Irish context, where there is a history of civil marriage law being used to discriminate against religious minorities.”

The Constitutional Convention set up last year by the Irish Government to examine possible changes to the Irish Constitution will meet in Dublin on 13 and 14 April to discuss same-sex civil marriage.

It is made up of 100 members two thirds of whom are citizen members chosen to represent a cross-section of Irish society.

The other third are parliamentary members of the Dail (Irish lower house) and Seanad (Irish senate) and MLAs from Northern Ireland.

In November 2012, Irish deputy prime minister (Tánaiste) Eamon Gilmore said he would like to see a referendum on equal marriage “as soon as possible”.

Mr Gilmore said his own view was that the “time has come” for Ireland to introduce marriage rights for gay couples. “I don’t believe we should postpone what is a human right,” he told RTÉ radio; Unquote.

...........................................................................................................................................

There is another part of the overall picture mentioned in the three main (southern) Irish newspapers about how the Irish Catholic Bishops have put out a statement that if the state does recognize Gay Marriage, they will forgo involvement in the Civil Marriage Registry part of Straight Marriages, which they have been involved in for decades. RC Church priests do over 60% of the registry work.

To me that seem's to be a threat to use uninvolved straight couples as a weapon against any state decision on the matter of Gay Civil Marriage, which the church would NOT be obliged, and would NOT be asked by the state, to officiate at.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I apologise if I offended anyone I made some nasty immature comments, I think I need to learn how to live and let live.

Thats a good apology, thanks and accepted.

StudentDad wrote: »

When I look around the world today I see change. The growth of the internet has allowed greater access to ideas and education in areas of the world that would not ordinarily have access to such resources.

One of the effects of this greater access to education is the knock on effect of people asking questions. The response by the religious and political right is to try and stop this change. It can't be done.

When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat she was asserting her right to be treated as an equal in society. Her actions reverberated around the world.

When it comes to 'Gay Rights' The same rules apply. What one individual or group of individuals define as their sexuality is entirely their business. Nobody has the right to discriminate against them.

There has to come a day when being 'different' is accepted as being part of the human condition and not condemned because an individual or group of individuals choose to define their identity for themselves.

SD

We couldn't allow that, we're living in a democracy, ffs, down with that sort of thing

Zombrex wrote: »

I see on the other forum's thread on gay marriage the myth that children are negatively effected by not being in a heterosexual family is still doing the rounds.

We have discussed this before, California has had gay adoption long enough to study the effect that being in a same sex family has on children. All the studies have found that being in such a family has no greater negative effect on the child than being in a heterosexual family (ie "mum and dad"). The things that effect children are de-stablizing factors, such as a lot of movement and divorce, which can occur in both groups and effects children the same irrespective of the orientation of the parents.

Despite this being presented numerous times on this thread and other's apparently some are still claiming this isn't accurate (unsurprisingly they never seem to back that up with anything).

So here are even more examples of psychologists finding no adverse effects of being in a homosexual family as opposed to a heterosexual family

Foster kids do equally well when adopted by gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents
High-risk children adopted from foster care do equally well when placed with gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents, UCLA psychologists report in the first multi-year study of children adopted by these three groups of parents.
...
"The children adopted by gay and lesbian parents had more challenges before they were adopted and yet they end up in the same place, which is impressive," said Letitia Anne Peplau, a distinguished research professor of psychology at UCLA and co-author of the study.

Does the Gender of Parents Matter?
At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being. To ascetain whether any particular form of family is ideal would demand sorting a formidable array of often inextricable family and social variables. We predict that even ‘‘ideal’’ research designs will find instead that ideal parenting comes in many different genres and genders

Sociology: Study examines gender roles of children with gay parents
Stacey and Biblarz found some evidence that children in gay households are more likely to buck stereotypical male-female behavior. For example, boys raised by lesbians appear to be less aggressive and more nurturing than boys raised in heterosexual families. Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers, engineers and astronauts.
...
One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

American Academy of Pediatrics - Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

And so on. All this has been presented before, there are literally hundreds of these studies, and you know Google is a thing btw.

Frankly I doubt anyone with entrenched Biblical views are going to change their mind (never let reality get in the way of a good dogma), but at least can they stop complaining that the research has not been presented. It has, you are willfully choosing to ignore it or spin it (its all liberal agenda!)

But they are just studies. I have seen parents playing with their kids in the park and it is clear to me that children need a mother and a father. I mean, it is just so obvious... Why do you ignore it?

MrP

koth wrote: »

What can an adoptive heterosexual couple do that an adoptive homosexual couple can't?

Not offend god(s)?

MrP

Zombrex wrote: »

I see on the other forum's thread on gay marriage the myth that children are negatively effected by not being in a heterosexual family is still doing the rounds.

So just to be clear and before we move on to me asking you about all these studies you've read, you believe that mums and dads are inconsequential in child rearing? Mums can be replaced with an extra dad and vice versa and all of these are just as ideal for the child, correct? The idea of a child being best served by having a mum and dad is what you are calling a myth that has been dispelled?

Frankly I doubt anyone with entrenched Biblical views are going to change their mind (never let reality get in the way of a good dogma), but at least can they stop complaining that the research has not been presented. It has, you are willfully choosing to ignore it or spin it (its all liberal agenda!)

TBH, this has nothing to do with the bible. You'll find people from all walks of life that realise the importance of kids having mums AND dads. Nor does it have anything to do with approving or disapproving of homosexuality etc. Homosexuality is only of consequence in this due to the fact that it is the homosexual lobby and their apologists that are seeking to push the idea that kids are not best served by having both a mum and a dad to raise them.

JimiTime wrote: »

So just to be clear and before we move on to me asking you about all these studies you've read, you believe that mums and dads are inconsequential in child rearing? Mums can be replaced with an extra dad and vice versa and all of these are just as ideal for the child, correct? The idea of a child being best served by having a mum and dad is what you are calling a myth that has been dispelled?



TBH, this has nothing to do with the bible. You'll find people from all walks of life that realise the importance of kids having mums AND dads. Nor does it have anything to do with approving or disapproving of homosexuality etc. Homosexuality is only of consequence in this due to the fact that it is the homosexual lobby and their apologists that are seeking to push the idea that kids are not best served by having both a mum and a dad to raise them.

@JimiTime. To be honest, it would be nice if the world and nature provided a perfect scenario where the parents (man & Woman) of children could be there 24/7, in ideal health. Utopia does not exist.

The homosexual lobby you refer to is simply pointing out the fact that gay couples in relationships are no more a risk to children than heterosexual couples.

The idea you are pushing, that homosexuals are pushing the idea that kids are not best served by a Mum and a Dad to raise them is not real.

Most homosexuals (male & female) would have been brought up by a Mum & Dad and well know that that is good. They also know that children can be brought up by gay couples to the standard that you espouse, that of loving caring adults and children family relationships.