Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart upon hearing of such audacious selfishness described in this article.
73 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Yep, that is super-creepy. Typical of the selfishness of people -- gay or straight -- who only think of themselves and not the children. Easy divorce, deliberate single parenting, gay parenting -- it is all sad.
These twins will have two selfish, self-centered deviants who are thinking of children as accessories but not of what's best for children. I fully support the "right" of such people to abuse themselves in what ever manner they find pleasing in the privacy of their own four walls. I just wish they'd leave children out of it. Try actually researching this issue, Jim, before you blather on stupidly about bigotry. I reccommend Jennifer Rorback Morse for sensible perspective on the issue of marriage and child-raising.
Or, you could actually show evidence that the author of the article has it wrong. That would be a nice change.
I recently reconnected with a friend from college who is raising twelve-year old twin girls with his partner. They seem to be happy well-adjusted children and my friend and his partner seem to be loving parents.
Good for you Vinny. Are you really good enough at child psychology to make such a judgement after "just reconnecting"? Do you know if they adopted (which is bad enough) or like the jerks in the article, dealt with a third party (an actual parent of the girls with whom they'll never connect) purposely depriving them of the guidance and influence of the parent of the other sex?
I feel so sorry for kids today and how they are forced to deal with the self-serving attitudes of those who dare call themselves resonsible adults. And so much of it over sex. And I'm given so much shit from lefties that I'm obsessed with sex!
Now, unlike Mark, I'm not one to believe that every homo or lesbian is automatically a child molester soon to use the kids to get their jollies. But willfully bringing into existence a child knowing the child will be deprived the benefit of being raised by one man and one woman as each child is meant to, and doing it just to satisfy a selfish desire to pretend to be just like a normal couple is without a doubt abusive to the child, regardless to what degree the child is affected by the act. That someone as smart as you, Vinny, can't see that I find simply beyond comprehension.
I can handle the stupidly inaccurate charge of bigotry being leveled against me when I stand up for truth. I consider the source. But I can't handle kids being used in such a cavalier manner. The welfare of the kids is not priority in these cases. Only the selfish desires of the "adults" have any weight. Shame on such people, and shame on those who support them.
You have the nerve to call me an ignorant Bigot, but you support the worst racists in our society today. You think yourself tolerant of hedonistic, perverted, deviant lifestyles but you aren't tolerant of anyone who has a different opinion than yours.
I find your intolerance of my intolerance intolerable.
"These twins will obviously have two loving, caring and able parents."
Well, sure, because you can always trust what celebrities say when being interviewed on national TV. That has to be a precise reflection of their private lives.
"And your bigotry is the highest form of selfishness."
So criticizing people for deliberately depriving a child of a mother is worse than deliberately depriving a child of a mother? Got it.
I'm sorry if I leapt to a conclusion your comments weren't meant to convey. I really feel strongly about this apart from my standard opposition to the homosex agenda in general. It isn't just homos who are so thoughtless regarding children. And it is also separate from a general and genuine concern for kids that a given homo might have. But the assumption that it won't make any difference to kids is exactly the opposite position anyone should have.
Can a homo provide a good environment for a child? Of course. I would never say it is impossible. The question is what is best for a child. In the situation depicted in the link, the child's well being is plainly not a consideration. As I said, the assumption is that there is no difference so no objection is legitimate and worthy of serious consideration. This is patently false and selfish on their part. No study has ever supported this assumption without later, upon deeper investigation, found to be lacking.
I have four sisters. Two had children and two did not. One of the ones who didn’t should have because she is one of the best people with children I have ever seen. Unfortunately, she was never very lucky with men. However, if she had ever wound up as a single parent, I would have rated her children luckier then most children who grow up with two parents.
All other things being equal, I agree that a child is better off with a mother and father who are married. All other things very rarely are equal though. People vary widely in their aptitude as parents. On average, children with a mother and a father do better, but I suspect that this is mostly because their odds of having at least one parent who is good at parenting are double those of children with only one parent. I think children with one good parent are better off than children with two crappy ones.
Ideally, the love that a husband and wife have for each other increases their capacity to love and that excess capacity spills out on the children. Many marriages are far from ideal though. People often marry for selfish and egotistical reasons and they often have children for selfish and egotistical reasons. No one tries to tell such couples that they shouldn’t bring children into the world though.
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of you last comment. I would cut to the chase and state that I believe there are times when adoption of a child by a single person or even a homo couple could certainly be more beneficial to the child than not adopting. But the point here doesn't reflect extreme circumstances. The point here concerns those who think that their desires to have a child, for whatever reason, are so important and Constitutionally protected (neither of which is true), that they trump the needs and considerations for the child.
These celebrity homos aren't the only examples of this selfishness. You may be aware of the Jennifer Aniston flap that sprung from the plot of her new movie. That's the exact same pathetically selfish situation. These are people that only care about their own desire for a child. It's the desire they wish to realize, not the child itself.
But let's look at it a slightly different way. Your last few lines speak of hetero couples having children for the wrong reasons and I think we're in agreement that it constitutes a wrong. So the comparison has to be which child is better off if the parents had the child for selfish reason? The child of a heteo couple, the child of a single parent or the child of a homo couple? THAT'S an apples to apples type of comparison.
Then, you have to run the same question with the difference of responsible, loving people who have children for the ideal reasons. The answer will always come up the same: one man and one woman as the parents is the best for the kids.
(The only scenario where this might not work is if the hetero, homo and single parents are all total assholes. The kid needs to be removed from each arrangement.)
You're off base on this statement:
"On average, children with a mother and a father do better, but I suspect that this is mostly because their odds of having at least one parent who is good at parenting are double those of children with only one parent."
I think you'll find that the best studies show the benefit is a matter of the complementary nature of the man/woman union. From each partner the child draws something unique that forms the proper notions of marriage and family. The influence of a man is different than that of a woman. They each bring to the table different qualities unique to the gender that is lost in single parent or homo parent arrangements. It's not a matter of whether or not the child can survive the less than ideal situation. It's not a matter of unforseen circumstances putting the child in that situation. It's a matter of what's best for the child and whether anyone has the right to willingly and purposely put the child in that situation. The answer is an unequivical "Hell no!"
As to telling selfish hetero couples whether they can or can't have kids, that's not the point either. We all have the duty to kids to try to dissuade such people from breeding or adopting. But for such people who are singles or homos, and they all are who try to have kids by whatever method, we must, for the sake of children born or yet to be, force the issue by whatever means we legally and/or legislatively can, otherwise we are complicit in whatever harm the unfortunate children suffer, no matter how slight or devastating.
Children born into poverty don’t do as well on average as children whose parents can afford to live in a safe neighborhood and send them to good schools. Children of overweight parents have a greater chance of obesity. Children whose parents have college degrees do better on average than children of parents who don’t finish high school. Children with a family history of alcoholism are more likely to be alcoholics. How about parents who prefer faith healing to standard medical practices? There are many identifiable factors that might make a child’s chances less than ideal.
There are also countless examples of children from less ideal homes that turn out better than children from more ideal homes. Couples who seem to have everything going for them sometimes turn out rotten kids and couples who are clueless sometimes turn out great kids. The averages are just averages.
I think the distinction between slight and devastating suffering is a very big matter. I don’t think the government should be regulating whether particular women can have children and whether they can give those children to specific people for adoption unless the potential harm is significantly and demonstrably greater than the potential harm from any of the factors that we choose not to regulate.
But you're still comparing apples to oranges. You have to compare according to kind. You mention obesity. OK. Which scenario would be the most beneficial for a child: Obese hetero couple, obese homo couple or an obese single parent? It would have to be the obese hetero parents.
Poverty? Impoverished hetero parents, impoverished homo parents or impoverished single parent? Here, the ideal, the best scenario from among the choices would still be the hetero parents.
(Again, if we're talking about alcoholics, then I'd prefer none of them have children in their care. Actually, I'd also prefer that impoverished people avoid having children until they can provide for them properly.)
"I think the distinction between slight and devastating suffering is a very big matter."
Again, you miss the point, which was that no matter how great or slight the harm, it should not be purposely inflicted upon children. Since in every comparable situation, the best is for a child to be raised by his own biological mother and father, then to purposely choose to bring a child into existence knowing it will be deprived of one or the other is to inflict harm purposely, even if the harm is slight. To support others doing it, to oppose efforts to deny others from doing it, is to be complicit in that harm visited upon the child. The degree of harm is totally inconsequential and irrelevant to this truth.
The government already has a hand in determining what a suitable environment is for a child when speaking of adoption. It can already remove children from environments that are determined to be detrimental. The problem now is that because of activism rather than science, placing children in homes of homos is not seen as detrimental.
I've already stated that circumstances can exist that dictate a child is better off in a homo home rather than a given alternative. But to view that as no different than a hetero home is simply a lie. THAT'S borne out by the serious studies. Because of that, I could only support a child placed in such a situation as a temporary measure because a child thrives best in the care of a married hetero couple and every effort should be made to see that a child gets that.
In the case of the Harris and Burtka, it's far worse because they are intentionally impregnating a woman in order to deprive the child of its mother. Jennifer Anniston defends a woman's right to do the same, by impregnating herself, then denying the child it's father. These are people that care for children? Who you crappin?
As a point of clarification, I totally reject the concept of anyone having a "right" to have children. It is NOT a right. It's a privilege and responsibility TO THE CHILD. I have always opposed the notion of artificial insemination, in vitro and any artificial means of procreation because lives are created that are lost, disposed of or stored like freakin' canned goods until someone decides to allow them to gestate. All of this is a result of a warped idea of family and procreation, generally that some adult is thinking of themselves so much that the consequences of these "medical miracles" are ignored as long as the selfish are satisfied in the end.
I think you are missing the point. Studies are based on average results. On average, children raised by a mother and a father do better than children raised by only one parent, but there are lots of exceptions on both sides. Some single parents do a great job and some couples do a crappy job. There are also some completely random outcomes. Some kids turn out rotten even though their parents did the best job imaginable and some kids from really crappy families turn out great. There are a lot of different factors that affect the outcome and it is rarely possible to be certain why a specific child turned out well or badly.
So the question is when we make an absolute rule out of any specific factor based on average results. When do we forbid certain categories of people from having or raising children because children in that category do worse on average than other children? If there are many children in that category who turn out fine, is it right to make an absolute prohibition?
That is why obesity and poverty and family health histories are relevant. They are all factors which on average influence how children turn out. We could make absolute prohibitions based on any of these factors.
Crap. I think my computer is toast. It won't power up completely and says the program for Windows is corrupted. I'm supposed to load the start up CD, but it opens through clicking on-screen icons. THERE'S NO BUTTON ON THE COMPUTER TO OPEN THE CD HOLDER!!! At least none I can find. DAMN! I hope it hasn't totally crashed. Gotta get the son-in-law, who's a computer geek, to rescue me once again. Let's hope this one doesn't fail me.
I think that last comment before Vinny's last is a screen name of my daughter. But she doesn't use my computer anymore! Hmmm. "TomatocrazyLovi" Naw!
You can't use exceptions to justify bad decisions. Or if you don't like that term, then you can't use exceptions to justify purposeful choices of what the averages say are options that don't best serve the child. You could just as easily say that not all children suffer permanent brain damage from blunt trauma to the head. But no one would think of head banging as an acceptable option for dealing with a child. Extreme example, no doubt, but we're talking about purposely making a choice that the averages say is less than ideal, and more often than not, detrimental to the well being of the child to one degree or another.
And yet again, I must remind you that examples have to be consistent. I'm comparing children raised by their biological parents, that is, a father and a mother, against other arrangements of parenting. Throwing in obesity, wealth or anything else can only be vaid if within the context of that kind of comparison, i.e., obese biological father and mother vs. obese homo parents or obese single parents. You insist on mixing them up. That's why I said things like obesity are irrelevant; not that such a condition is irrelevant to child rearing, but irrelevant in a discussion specifically about the effects on a child due to whether or not the child is raised in a traditional family or another arrangement.
Here's another variation: If you want to use the obesity angle, it has to used in the following manner to be a good comparison for what Harris and the other perv are doing:
A fat hetero couple want to have a child. As they plan for the blessed event, they decide, on purpose, that they will raise the kid on the same crappy diet that has rendered the both of them unable to ever again see their own feet. In this they have chosen willfully to raise their child in a manner that is detrimental to the child.
But I don't think that's common with fat people. I don't think they "plan" to fatten their child. They just don't think in terms of healthy diets. It's more a matter of lazy thinking than willful neglect.
There is no way, however, that one can deny that Harris is purposely denying the twins they are "expecting" a mother. That is willful. It's on purpose. And they don't f**king care about the kids enough to give damn. All they care about is having children and playing house. Absolutely such disregard should be restricted, just as other forms of child abuse compel society to act in the child's interest. And just as other forms so compel society, society is justified in acting to prevent such disregard from being perpetrated on children before the fact.
All abuse of children is actionable by gov't right now. The degree to which abuse provokes gov't intervention has changed in the past fifty years or so to the point where the method of discipline common back then is enough for social workers to step in and remove kids from their homes. It's a question of degrees and I believe the line that is already drawn should be altered to include this situation. I want to sharpen the focus of that by saying that I'm still referring to instances where such things are planned in advance; purposely depriving kids of a mother or a father, as opposed to unexpected circumstances putting kids in such a situation. (A newly widowed mother shouldn't lose her kids)
Congrats to Doogie and his husband... Neil (Doogie) seems to have his head on straight - one of the few child actors to turn into a responsible, likable, well rounded adult. He'll make an excellent dad I bet!
There is a study recently published that makes the case that lesbian couples make better parents than hetro ones... As Vinny so eloquently puts it: 'there are exceptions to every rule.'...But while studies like this are only part of the story... they go a long way in fighting the bigotry and homophobia displayed by so many christians these days (hint hint Mark!).
Marshall wrote: "we're talking about purposely making a choice that the averages say is less than ideal, and more often than not, detrimental to the well being of the child to one degree or another."
Do you have any evidence that "more often than not" gay parents have a detrimental effect on the children?? Any studies? Anything other than your homophobia to go on here?
Marshall cont'd: "I must remind you that examples have to be consistent. I'm comparing children raised by their biological parents, that is, a father and a mother, against other arrangements of parenting."
But you're talking about denying certain people their chance to be parents! If you're going to say 'gay parents aren't ideal' that's one thing... because 'single parents aren't ideal', 'poor parents aren't ideal'. etc.... There are a whole host of parenting practices that might not fall into your "ideal". But they're out there... and they're doing fine.
Your version of the ideal parents hardly exists anymore... get over it. Single parents abound - are you attempting to limit these arrangements? No? Just the gays huh.... not fair.
With blunt trauma, we understand how the damage comes about and we understand that there is no potential for positive results. The point of the exceptions is that we don’t always know why a particular factor leads to a particular result. Based on the averages, we may conclude that having only one parent is a disadvantage—just as the averages tell us that poverty, lack of education, and obesity are disadvantages—but we know that the disadvantage is often overcome by other qualities the single parent may possess. By the same token, on average having both a mother and a father may be an advantage, but we know that this advantage often comes to naught due to other parental shortcomings.
The question is why we would come up with a blanket prohibition based on a disadvantage. In the case of blunt trauma, the results are so overwhelmingly negative and there is no evidence whatsoever that the disadvantages can be overcome by other factors. With regard to child rearing, the results are not overwhelming one-sided and there is ample evidence to indicate that disadvantages can be overcome.
No one can deny that the disadvantage of not having a mother can be overcome. Moreover, no one can say for certain that Mr. and Mrs. Doogie’s children will not be happy and well adjusted and no one can say that they will not someday make a valuable contribution to society.
But Vinny and Joe, you haven't addressed Mark's assertion have you?
"[H]ow old will the twins be the first time Neil or David or one of their pervert friends molests them? ... It's not a question of if they will be molested. It is a question of when."
"With blunt trauma, we understand how the damage comes about and we understand that there is no potential for positive results."
First of all, the point was that with blunt trauma, there are exceptions. Not all blunt trauma results in permanent damage. Billions of people (give or take) suffer blunt trauma at least once in their lives, with many other experiencing multiple incidents over the course of their lives. One could certainly say that each sustained some kind of damage, maybe permanent, but not all show any effects of that damage ever in their lives. I'm setting myself up really well here, but I'll stick my neck out anyway: I took several severe shots to the skull during my youth, particularly pre-teen years, with one knocking me unconscious and leaving a massive bump on my forehead that made me look like a mongoloid child. As a result of some recent health issues, I underwent a brain scan which showed no issues whatsoever. So there ya go. I'm proof that not all blunt trauma results in serious effects. Yet, we would not advise subjecting one's self, and certainly not children, to blunt trauma.
In the same way, we know that children are harmed by being deprived of either a mother or a father. Not that they can't overcome it or live without the harm manifesting. THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!! The point is purposely denying the child one or the other parent and doing so not because the shitheads doing it give a rat's ass whether or not the kid may thrive or not despite the loss, but simply because the shithead cares only about HIM/HERself and how badly they want to have a child. I don't understand why this is lost on you.
As regards positive results from blunt trauma, I insist there are no positive results from purposely denying the child a mother or father. In each case, there is simply the child developing positively in spite of the blunt trauma or denial of the missing parent. You again try to make a bad comparison. My use of the blunt trauma example was to respond to the point of exceptions to the averages. On average, blunt trauma is a very bad thing for anyone's skull. Not all suffer lasting effects. On average, being denied a mother or a father is a very bad thing for anyone's psyche. Not all suffer lasting effects. But because the averages, hell, common sense, dictates that both are very bad things, to do either on purpose is abusive.
(I must again stress that there is a distinction between purposely putting a child in a bad situation and the child through unexpected or uncontrollable circumstances being put in a bad situation. I repeat this for Joe's benefit, as he has joined the conversation and seems to be repeating points already covered. I'll get to Joe specifically later.)
There have been many kids who have lived through atrocities, such as Jews in concentration camps and other similar situations. Many who survived such horrors went on to be contributing citizens leading normal to exceptional lives. But we don't abide putting kids in those situations on purpose. People have overcome all sorts of physical and psychological traumas of every degree, but we don't knowingly risk putting a child into one and doing so "for the chance to have children" is reprehensible.
No blunt traumas are good. No blunt traumas are better than the absence of blunt traumas. There are no offsetting positive factors that would ever make blunt trauma better than the absence of blunt trauma.
Many single parent homes are good. Many single parent homes are better than many dual parent homes. There are many potential positives that can offset the negative of not having a mother or a father.
You're doing it again, Vinny. It's not that blunt traumas are any good. The point was to say that like being deprived of a mother or father, one can survive blunt trauma without lasting effects, or at least effects that aren't outwardly manifested or felt. I'm trying to compare apples to apples here and you insist on straying to other produce.
But though people have been known to survive blunt trauma, that some defy the averages, one does not purposely subject themselves to blunt trauma.
As a most rambunctious boy, I experience tons of injuries, including blunt trauma that rendered me unconscious and left a lump on my forehead that made me look like a mongoloid child. I didn't even recognize myself. I took other blows to the head (but that was by far the worst) that left me concussed. There was even one about 25 years or so ago that was the result of heavy drinking that left me with vertigo for about a week. A battery of tests for a health issue included a brain scan (MRI) and it showed absolutely no problems.
I grew up without a father after he passed when I was nine. I can look back now and see times where his absence made situations more difficult. I could list a dozens of ways having him around could have made growing up easier and things father teach I had to learn on my own, not even really knowing that was what I was doing. And I definitely felt the loss every time I saw my friends interact with their fathers. Do you honestly think that those well adjusted children of single parents and homos don't go through that, even if only a little bit? What kind of asshole purposely puts a kid through that? What kind of asshole thinks he has the right to roll the dice with a child's psyche, just to satisfy his/her own selfish desire to have a kid?
Hopefully, unlike Joe, you've noticed that this isn't the usual anti-homo rant typical of this blog. It's a pro-child rant. I can't believe you aren't catching on and jumping on board. Are you so "queer" for the "gay rights" agenda that you'll ignore what's best for kids? Are you going to throw in with Joe and stand behind that discredited study to which he linked that was done by lesbians?
(Well just to stay consistent with the righteous position of this blog as far as the agenda goes, Harris' abnormal desires proves he does not have his head on straight. His decision to succomb to his abnormal desires proves he does not have his head on straight. Joe supporting Harris in his abnormal desires shows that JOE doesn't have HIS head on straight.)
For a more direct response to Joe, I decide to provide a few links of my own. http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
This first one is notable because one of the criteria of the author was to use only those studies done by homosexuals so as not to risk a skew by ant-homo researchers.
I would point out, however, that the doctor in the last link states that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. But like all other studies I've seen that say the same thing, they fail to address the obvious fact that we are created, by either God or nature, in two sexes. This means that we are created to join with the opposite sex. People (or animals) that don't are abnormal. There's something disordered about them. I'm also not about to go through every study cited by FRC and compare them with the objections of Herek and then present exhaustive conclusions here. Those don't cover the real issue anyway, which regards the effects on children being raised by singles or homos. The first one does that really well, and the other three demonstrate other concerns that society should consider before assuming that there is just no difference and no affect on children put in those situations.
I briefly scanned one of Art's links. One point I would make about the various studies:
I noticed the use of the term "bi-sexual" used as if it is somehow different than homosexuality. Make no mistake. People who insist they are not homosexual but are only bisexual are nevertheless, still deviants. There is no third term that makes one only partly or halfway abnormal.
In an early post on my own blog I wrote a few years ago, I discussed a study conducted by some pro-homosexual researchers wherein they placed a male gene into a female fruit fly and then watched as the genetically altered fruit fly attempted to seduce and have sex with another female fruit fly.
The researchers claimed this proved homosexuality was genetic.
In fact, it proved just the opposite.
Without artificially altering the genetic makeup of the female fruit fly, it would have never attempted the seduction of another female. That proves homosexuality does not exist in nature.
Thus, homosexuality is not natural nor is it normal, and no amount of honest research will ever prove it is.
Do you honestly think that those well adjusted children of single parents and homos don't go through that, even if only a little bit?
I have no doubt that they do. What I doubt is that any of those well adjusted children would think that never having been born was preferable to going through life with a single parent. I think they would say "Gee. I wish I had two parents, but life is still good and I am happy that I have the relationship with the parent I do have and I am glad to be alive."
I grew up as the youngest in a family of nine. My parents were good people but by the time I came along they didn't have the time and energy to devote the kind of attention to me that my oldest siblings got. I was sometimes jealous of the kids whose parents came to all their little league games and school plays. I think there were times when it might have helped if my parents were more aware of problems I was having. On the other hand, there were many good things about my family that I wouldn't trade for anything. I don't wish that my parents had stopped at eight.
I suspect that Doogie's kids will wish at times that they had a more normal family life, but I suspect that they will still be glad to be alive and they won't think that never having been born was a preferable alternative.
"What I doubt is that any of those well adjusted children would think that never having been born was preferable to going through life with a single parent."
Irrelevant. How could one gauge such a think without first having been born anyway? It's another "after-the-fact argument". It's from the perspective of what has already taken place and is meaningless to the discussion. This concerns the choice to put the child in such situations, the morality of it, the selfishness of it and as the child wasn't given any consideration up front, it's kinda late, not to mention "moot", to worry about it now.
What is most troubling is that the issue of homosexuality is not a settled one to begin with. As stated, it's self-evidently a disorder but has been ignored by the psychiatric profession due to activism and not science. I wonder if you looked at any of the links I provided, particularly the first (I think it was) that spoke of the higher percentage of kids from homo environments that turn to homosexuality themselves. I wonder if you saw the bit about kid being orphaned after having been adopted because both the parents died prematurely due to their lifestyle. I wonder if you caught the part where kids are more often made to deal with broken homes as the average homo relationship is short-lived compared to the average hetero marriage. I wonder if it bothers you in the least that a higher percentage of kids in homo homes are made to deal with infidelity of their "parents", thus corrupting their understanding of family and marriage and what love really is. I wonder if you consider the fact that one needn't overtly feel the harm one has suffered to be negatively impacted by that harm. In the case of Harris, he's purposely putting kids in a situation where they must face some or all of these possibilities and rolling the dice that they'll come out of it just fine. I wonder what kind of odds Vegas would give such a thing with all the FACTS figured in?
Regarding your first comment, one of the links speaks of a difference between pedophilia, which deals with small children, and another "philia" which deals with older kids. I believe it's the last link from a Dr that seems to dismiss claims of more molestation amongst homos. It's part of a larger report of his online. But, the point I want to make is that he wants to go out of his way to separate homos that are attracted to men and those attracted to teens and those attracted to boys to say that homos, I gues the "real men" among them, are only attracted to men and thus not a threat. But the same is true of heteros who are only attracted to women. So what? If one groups heteros in the same way, what do we have? We have heteros with hetero attractions though some are sickly attracted to little girls. And really, if we take little girls out of the equation, the idea of it being sick to be attracted to teens, even younger teens, is really a more modern attitude. Only two or three generations ago, marriages to 14 and 15 year old girls was not unheard of. Why would it be any different that some homos would find teen boys attractive as well? We all have preferences, don't we? Some prefer blondes. Some like a little extra meat. Some go for mature women and some for young.
This comes up in the discussions of homo priests, that they are somehow not homos because the target of their deviant affections are younger. But being homo is only a matter of the sex to which one is attracted. Men, teens, boys. Still homo attractions.
The fact that a person must be born in order to gauge such a thing doesn’t make it irrelevant. I am personally happy that my parents did not stop at eight children, but I can still form an opinion about whether having that many children is a good idea or not. Due to my wife’s health problems, we only had two children, but I don’t think that we would have had more than four or five in any case. However, I don’t think that the odds are so seriously stacked against a ninth child that I would assert that having that many is in any way immoral or that people should not be allowed to make that choice.
By the way, my sympathies on the loss of your father. I wasn’t close to my Dad as a child but I did get to know him better when I became an adult and my older siblings moved away and I felt lucky to have that relationship with him.
I hope that it will not offend you if I pose a hypothetical and ask a couple of questions: Suppose your father had been diagnosed with a terminal disease prior to your conception and your mother decided to become pregnant knowing that you would not have a father growing up. (1) Knowing what you went through, would you say that it would have been selfish or immoral for her to do that? (2) Would your answer to that depend on what kind of support your mother had, e.g., whether there were grandfathers or uncles who would be there to help? (3) If you did consider it immoral or selfish, would you say that what you went through was so bad that people should be prevented from doing that if possible?
Not offended in the least, but I appreciate your concern that it might offend.
I was a second child. The first, my brother, was already on hand to carry on the family name, which, I feel, is a reasonable exception to my position. With such a consideration, I can't see that the effects on the child were not properly weighed against the desire to have the family continue through the generations. Yet, even there, there is a bit of self-centeredness in the desire to prevent the line from dying out, yet it is seen as a more noble thing culturally. Can a homo use the same angle? If he tries, he's still doing the same thing within a far less noble context by insisting on preserving his "right" to engage in sex in a perverse manner. The homo sex is still taking precedence in the scenario because preserving the family line can still be done in the proper manner, the homo just thinks more of his "orientation" than anything else.
Aside from that caveat of legacy, I would insist that no, my mother would be selfish to insist on children knowing in advance that they would have no father. It would be better if she didn't, though not criminal if she did.
Grandfathers, uncles or male friends or step-fathers can be solid replacements for some aspects of the loss of a father (true also for female equivalents), but none are the same as having one's own biological father.
In general, people should, in the very least, be strongly discouraged from the notion that they should ever purposely seek to have a child without the child having both mother and father for it's development. The extent to which we do it legally/legislatively is another story and I've not thought through the possibilities. The problem is that people look at every possible desire they could ever have as a right to which they are Constitutionally entitled. That's not the case at all, and in this situation, I'm far more concerned for the impact on children than I'll ever be for the "rights" of people so obsessed with their sexual fetishes. I'd much rather adults be denied outright than to risk harming a child and work backwards from there.
I agree with you here, Marshall. They are having children for their own sake as though the childen were a project of theirs. That strikes me as a bad attitude to approach the thing with. Children are not born to gratify their parents, they have their own lives to lead and if parents think they own them they can become stifling control freaks. In Australia, the case arose where a lesbian couple who had an IVF impregnation had twins instead of the intended single child - and sued the doctor who performed the procedure! They claimed that having twins when they only wanted a single child had caused such hardship that one of the 'mothers' had lost her capacity to love! This in a world where too many people can't have children at all! In other words, it was about them, not the children. Parents should not think it IS all about them, I say. And I've got reservations about two people of the same gender acting as a parenting couple, too bad if I'm not politically correct because what I think I can't help thinking. By the way, it's interesting to hear that a child reacts differently to the touch of different gender parents. That shows that one cannot be interchangeable with the other, no matter what the social engineers try to do. Humans overdo their attempts to reinvent the world and change the way nature operates.
Well said, Andrew, and absolutely right! I was in my mid-thirties when I got married and we had our daughter when I was forty (not for lack of trying earlier). Even as we made the attempts right away, I was already thinking in terms of the what being an older parent might entail for the sake of my child. I felt that I had a responsibility to be more concerned about my health than I think I ordinarily would have if I had been married at a much earlier age. I was also thinking in terms of adjusting my life in other ways in order to be what I thought (and still think) a father should be. My wife's two daughters were already on the scene and though they were not mine, I had made similar adjustments when marriage to their mother seemed confirmed.
I'm reminded a scene from "Look Who's Coming To Dinner" starring Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy and Sidney Poitier. There's a scene where Sid's character and his father discussing Sid's impending marriage to the white chick. The father, who's not keen on the idea, regales for Sidney all he had done for the sake of Sidney throughout his life and that because of all that sacrifice, Sidney owes Dad some consideration. Sidney says "NO! You brought me into this world, so you owed all that sacrifice to ME! It was YOUR responsibility to provide."
That's the basic issue here, but from a more pre-emptive point of view. When we're commnanded to honor or parents, I think it's so that we don't take advantage of that responsibility the parents have when conceiving a child. Unfortunately, the pecking order is more of a servant status in both directions. The parent might be in charge, but not as a king or despot of the family, but as the one with the most responsibility.
As regards the issue at hand, what service does a parent perform by purposely depriving the child of the other parent? It's incumbent upon anyone desiring a child to take into account what's best for the child. What's best for a child is a mother and a father, not two fathers instead, or two mothers instead, or one of either but not both instead. We OWE that to the children we hope to have.
I think the problem arises when you try to come up with some prohibition. If we wish to deter selfishly motivated procreation, then everyone's motives need to be examined.
Ideally, I believe the prohibition should be self-imposed.
Second best is public humiliation. We do this now with smoking and some other behaviors. Ironically, it is being done against those who oppose sinful and self-destructive lifestyles like homosexuality.
Both of these fail because they are contingent upon widespread understanding of right and wrong as opposed to wrong understandings of "rights". For far too many, "rights" are contingent specifically upon satisfying personal desire.
Things have strayed too far at this point that a situation such as that presented in the linked article involves more than one wrongheaded notion upon another which complicates things. Several issues need to be addressed, any one of which could prevent this travesty. It begins with the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behiavor. To the extent that two consenting adults can abuse each other to their deviant hearts' content, I no longer care. They harm only themselves and the hearts of those who love them and oppose their behavior.
Then, there's the notion that this abnormal behavior should be treated as no different than normal behavior. This is goofy on the face of it. Treating what's different as if they're the same? Only from the left.
Then, there's the notion that we should treat their unions as if they are equal to actual marriages. See the previous for goofiness, but in this, we've already covered the stark differences which lead to the next,
which deals with children.
At this point, society has not come close to resolving the first point. They've only allowed activism to dictate how the point should be viewed, treated and/or tolerated. This is another situation where the left ignores science in order to placate their desires.
On top of this is the issue of artificial insemination. This suggests that people have the "right" to conceive and have children. There is no such right as I've stated before. It is certainly not a right that justifies creating life that will later be discarded, stored or sold/given for destructive and fruitless research.
And that touches on the issue of when life begins, another area where the left ignores science to justify their self-centered agendas.
One might think that this limited list exposes a despotic denial of individual liberties on my part. It does not. It is the expression of the truth that we are given freedoms but not without the responsibility to exercise it responsibly and maturely and with some concept of right and wrong, which itself is the acknowledgment that right/wrong exists before us and is knowable, rather than something we decide based on the direction of the prevailing winds.
Mark wrote: "Without artificially altering the genetic makeup of the female fruit fly, it would have never attempted the seduction of another female. That proves homosexuality does not exist in nature."
Wow. Science isn't your strong suit is it... (hint - that doesn't "prove" anything of the sort.)
There are many instances of homosexual behavior among the animal kingdom - penguins, chimps, dolphins, etc... none involve humans genetically altering anything.
That actually "proves" that homosexuality isn't unique to humans.
Please. Don't embarrass yourself. The fact that some animals might hook up with another of the same sex isn't really an indication of same-sex attraction, but that the animal might be attracted to a specific animal of the same sex that it might think is the other sex. Is there really proof that they are "attracted" as in, "Hubba, hubba! That dude is HOT!"? Are animals capable of judgement to the extent that they actually think in terms of choosing one sex over the other? IF they seem to be attracted to another of the same sex, is it some flaw in their instinct, a particular animal's scent that is confused by the other as being of the opposite gender or a distinct choice on the part of the animal that it is wants nothing to do with mating with the opposite sex? I don't think they have the capacity for such decision making as regards sex and only act on instinct.
The fact that there may be examples of same sex attractions in the animal kingdom only shows that the disorder is present in other species as well as in humans. To use that as some "proof" that it is normal is nonsensical and illogical thinking. That's like saying that because animals exhibit aggression that agressive behavior in humans should be tolerated as well.
Some people ARE more agressive than others you know. And some studies trying to legitimize homo behavior show that the biological reasons explaining homo behavior are the result of the opposite condition that results in agressive behavior. If we must accept one behavior because "they can't help it", then we must accept the other.
But more to the point, whether or not it shows up in the animal world, two things must be kept in mind:
1. It is still an abnormality, a deviation from what the being is designed to be doing, and
2. Humans are supposed to be the higher functioning species capable of rational thought and the ability to choose how to act over simply acting on instinct. Unless you're saying we should lower ourselves to acting like animals, bringing up the animal kingdom is pointless at best and dishonest at worst.
That being said, I will say that I don't agree with Mark's conclusion, either. But I would say the fruit fly experiment demonstrates that if one can be made to change attractions in that manner, we can change the abnormal in order that they might be attracted to the opposite sex. But, for all the whining about "if I could choose, do you think I'd choose to suffer the hassels of being homo in a straight world?", they whine about the idea of science affecting such a change. Not long ago, researchers in Scotland (I believe it was) were experimenting with doing as much with sheep. I might have this wrong, but I believe they were trying to determine before birth if a sheep was likely to "be gay" and affect changes. The other possibility was that they were trying to determine homosexuality before birth in order to abort. I would oppose the latter for humans of course, but the former deserves serious study.
Joe Agnost left the following comment, but it didn't post for some reason. I've copied it from my email inbox to paste it for all to see.
-----------------------------------
Wow MA - you can't decide which direction to go eh?
First you try and discredit the idea of gay animals: "The fact that some animals might hook up with another of the same sex isn't really an indication of same-sex attraction, but that the animal might be attracted to a specific animal of the same sex that it might think is the other sex."
Then you seem to accept the idea: "The fact that there may be examples of same sex attractions in the animal kingdom only shows that the disorder is present in other species as well as in humans."
But that's my point. You can call it a "disorder" if you choose to, but you can't deny that it's a issue that is NOT unique to humans.
Marshall cont's: "To use that as some 'proof' that it is normal is nonsensical and illogical thinking."
I didn't do anything of the kind. I simply stated that it wasn't "unique" to humans. Something you seem to agree with. That is what was proven by the examples I gave (penguins, dolphins, chimps...).
Marshall cont's: "1. It is still an abnormality, a deviation from what the being is designed to be doing"
I agree that it's "abnormal" and a "deviation" from the norm. I disagree that "design" has anything to do with it, you know, because we aren't "designed" and all.
Marshall cont's: "2. Humans are supposed to be the higher functioning species capable of rational thought and the ability to choose how to act over simply acting on instinct."
Really? You don't think any other animals (you know humans are animals right?) are capable of rational thought?
"Unless you're saying we should lower ourselves to acting like animals"
I don't think "lower" is the right term. I don't think animals are "lower" than us in everything - our brain power might be superior (certainly to ~most~ animals), but that might be it.
And finally: "bringing up the animal kingdom is pointless at best and dishonest at worst."
Whatever... just because we're a member of the "animal kingdom" right?
Regarding the study of a homosexual gene - I think that's interesting and valid work. I think the main problem gay people have with being gay is the attitude of others... which is why they say things like 'I wouldn't choose to be gay becuase it's hard to be gay in this world'.
The problem is that they ~are~ gay, and it's not easy! Your suggestion (to help their difficult life) is to make them hetro - while mine is to change the way society views them. Both solutions would help them get through life more easily - but your solution involves changing ~who~ they are.
I don't see anything wrong with being gay. It's like left-handedness, it's not "normal" and ~is~ "deviant" (in that it deviates from the norm) but it's who they are!
My first comment is the key comment. But the second doesn't contradict it. Let me clarify:
For the first one, I would have thought the "Hubba, hubba..." bit would have helped to get across my meaning, which is that it isn't an attraction in the same sense as attractions between humans. Animals don't think that way. Think of it this way: Do you think a Labrador Retriever would be hot for Goldens because they're like blondes to dogs? Or maybe they're into the big butts of English Sheepdogs. What do you think? Are animals making mating choices based on such things? I don't think they even choose mates based on the sex of the other animal but are compelled by scents which stimulate their doggie libidos.
The second point was to indicate the only way there is a connection with humans which is that there is some disorder causing them to attempt to mate with other animals of the same sex. I use the term "attraction" because that's what we're talking about, not because I agree that the animals are homos.
Thus, what's going on in homos is indeed unique because we function differently than animals, particularly since we have the power within us to change.
I concede you didn't offer it as proof of normal behavior. I was speaking preemptively since such is often followed by that kind of statement.
"Really? You don't think any other animals (you know humans are animals right?) are capable of rational thought?"
No. I don't. I know there are studies looking to determine the question, but I don't think they are definitive in any way. Much depends on the researchers' definition of rational thought.
"I don't think "lower" is the right term. I don't think animals are "lower" than us in everything - our brain power might be superior (certainly to ~most~ animals), but that might be it."
Animals are aways lower than us. They do not have rights. They do not have the same value as humans. The worst cretin in the world is trapped in a burning building along with the cutest little puppy you've ever seen. You can only save one. The puppy dies every time. We're that much above animals.
"Whatever... just because we're a member of the "animal kingdom" right?"
I won't speak for you, but though many humans act like animals, none of them are. We are not a part of the animal kingdom. That's liberal bullshit.
"I think the main problem gay people have with being gay is the attitude of others..."
More lib claptrap. The main problem homos have is that they're homos. But it can be dealt with as evidenced by all those who have left the lifestyle. Like adulterers, for example, the problem with homos is their unwillingness to curb their behavior. Womanizers never get over their desire to whore about. But they can control it and act according to a higher standard. Homos have come to believe they don't have to. And now they insist we agree with them. I don't.
"The problem is that they ~are~ gay, and it's not easy!"
And some are womanizers and some are lazy and some are violent and some are greedy and some are conceited and some are gluttons and on and on and on and it ain't easy for any of 'em. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Why not try to change the way society views all of 'em? They will all testify that it's just the way they are and if they could change, why, by golly, why would they choose to be as they are? It's not the weight of the cross, it's the strength of the spirit. But a weak spirit doesn't legitimize the refusal to carry that cross. We can understand and sympathize with their plight, but allowing them to wallow in their deviancy is not the answer.
"I don't see anything wrong with being gay. It's like left-handedness,"
Perhaps the most difficult argument to deal with is "if I could choose, do you think I'd choose to suffer the hassles of being homo in a straight world?"
It would seem to make sense. Why would anyone invite suffering into their lives when it's so easy to avoid? Who wants to suffer?
I've answered that argument before: Google the term, "Munchhausen Syndrome".
Thanks for posting that for me MA - I don't know why it screwed up like that...
MA wrote: "The main problem homos have is that they're homos. But it can be dealt with as evidenced by all those who have left the lifestyle."
Now it's my turn - ~that~ is religious homophobic BS! Just look at the number of rabid anti-gay pastors out there that end up caught in another man's pants. You'd think they (of all people) would make the choice to change wouldn't you? They can't ~change~, they can just remain in the closet.
MA cont's: "Like adulterers, for example, the problem with homos is their unwillingness to curb their behavior."
Except that adulterers ~hurt~ other people with their actions. I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people. Why should a gay man "curb their behavior"? Who are they hurting?
MA cont's: "Womanizers never get over their desire to whore about. But they can control it and act according to a higher standard. Homos have come to believe they don't have to."
These "womanizers" are still womanizers - they just adjust their behavior so they don't hurt other people (though it's debatable that womanizing hurts anyone). So you're saying that a gay man can't control the ~being~ gay part, but he ~should~ adjust accordingly and remain celebate for their entire lives. Is that right?
And: "And now they insist we agree with them. I don't."
No - they insist on receiving the same rights as you and me. You don't have to agree, you just can't discriminate.
The bottom (pun intended ;) line for me is that I just can't see ANY harm coming from being gay. I see nothing wrong with gay people and thus don't have a problem with it.
Until you can show that being gay actually hurts another person you just won't convince me that we should withold anything from them - and that includes adopting children.
"Thanks for posting that for me MA - I don't know why it screwed up like that..."
No problem, Joe. I don't intentionally try to dodge anyone, except for maybe feodor who just bores the hell out of me.
"...that~ is religious homophobic BS! Just look at the number of rabid anti-gay pastors out there that end up caught in another man's pants. You'd think they (of all people) would make the choice to change wouldn't you?"
First of all, the charge of homophobia is wasted here. It's a term that denotes a projected attitude by the user, not a true reflection of the people the user opposes.
Regarding the number of rabid anti-gay pastors found to be homosexual themselves, I would first say that I have no idea how to number the amount of those to which one could legitimately apply the term "rabid". Are they rabid for merely correctly referring to homo behavior as sinful? Don't think so. I'd say the preacher that comes closest to being "rabid" on the subject is the goofy Fred Phelps, who is in need of counseling and a retraining in Scriptural teaching. As to those who righteously preach against this sinful behavior whilst being homo themselves, I'd say it's likely around 2% of the total number of clergy, perhaps a bit higher if you factor in Roman Catholic priests and monks, of whom the suspicion exists that some are homos going in, hoping to be awash in the faith, but finding others of their ilk with which to engage in the sin. Others prey upon boys of varying ages.
But the fact that they are in daily contact with reminders of the God in which they claim to believe has little to do with their personal level of self-control. Vows, as we see in other aspects of life, do not prevent the taker of the vow from acting against that vow. People of the cloth are just as susceptible to the temptations of their own fallen nature. Even to be saved does not mean one will never sin.
"Except that adulterers ~hurt~ other people with their actions. I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people."
That's either because you aren't looking or ignoring what is available. For example, the links I posted you didn't review or you're ignoring what they've presented. Among them is a couple that speaks to a variety of problems more common in or unique to the homo community, many of which have nothing to do with how normal people react or view them. They would exist in their perfect world where everyone thinks their sinful and physically destructive behavior is just peachy. And those don't even get into the potential harm done if all opposition was totally eliminated, that is, what such a position would do to society in general. We get a taste of that potential by taking stock of the changes in countries that have had homo marriages for awhile. It doesn't bode well.
Keep in mind that "harm" can manifest in a variety of ways. Take a punch in the face, for example. It obviously harms the face that was punched, as well as to negatively impact the psyche of the owner of that face. Anyone who sees the face getting punch is similarly affected psychologically. The area where such face punching is common suffers by reputation and can affect who visits, who moves in or who moves out. The harm done by routine face punching enhances these negative effects and has a lasting effects as well.
In the same way, appeasing those who engage in bad behavior can have such a ripple effect throughout the culture, many of which are never considered by proponents and enablers. If there's anything to which the term "phobia" might be legitimately attached, it would be from the legitimate concern by people who DO look beyond the poor put-upon homos that are expected to, like the rest of us, rise above their base instincts.
"So you're saying that a gay man can't control the ~being~ gay part, but he ~should~ adjust accordingly and remain celebate for their entire lives. Is that right?"
Well if it comes to that, sure. But that's no different than any single hetero person. They, too, should remain celebate their whole lives if they cannot find a suitable mate. That's the ideal to which we all should aspire, particularly since there is no fool proof method for preventing pregnancies beyond tubal litigation or vascectomies, except for celebacy. Our culture has unfortunately given in to the notion that sex between two consenting adults is morally neutral, harmless, and somehow mature behavior. It isn't any of the above no matter how much fun it is.
But the issue isn't simply about homos having sex or not. It's about adults controlling their desires. There are all sorts of behaviors that the culture insists should be controlled, and help with laws and punishments in some cases, but not all those are overtly harmful. For example, there are a lot of assholes in the world and a lot of them never cause any serious harm of any kind. Yet, we'd all prefer they didn't act like assholes. With the homo, we're expected to treat this behavior differently because some of the 2% of the population who are homos insist there is no reason to expect them to police themselves.
"Until you can show that being gay actually hurts another person you just won't convince me that we should withold anything from them - and that includes adopting children."
I did show you but you didn't look, as I said earlier. The mission now is to go back and begin with the links I've presented and start looking at the situation with an objective eye. If you can do that and remain unchanged, then you're not being reasonable at all. I am reasonable. Most like me are. We don't intend to deprive anyone of indulging their personal fetishes in the privacy of their own homes with consenting adults. We simply don't think there's any rational, legitimate, science-based reason to comply with their demands to change the culture to accomdate those fetishes. They've got nothing but, "Because we want it, damnit!" That's not good enough in any society, nor should it be.
"I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people. Why should a gay man "curb their behavior"? Who are they hurting?"
Uhhhh, didja ever hear of AIDS?
Not only does AIDS hurt themnselves, it crosses over to so-called bi-sexuals, and then to heterosexuals, and now the epidemic of AIDS is killing people by the millions worldwide. Maybe your too young to remember, but gays were the first to be infected with AIDS. It was exclusively a gay disease until they started infecting heterosexuals, too, some intentionally.
MA wrote: "We get a taste of that potential by taking stock of the changes in countries that have had homo marriages for awhile. It doesn't bode well."
Excuse me?? I live in Canada and we've had gay marriage for a number of years - let me tell you, it's a non issue. It really is. There are ZERO problems this has led to.
MA cont'd: "...appeasing those who engage in bad behavior can..."
You still haven't shown that homosexuality ~is~ "bad behavior". I don't see it...
MA concluded: "The mission now is to go back and begin with the links I've presented and start looking at the situation with an objective eye."
I did that. It was less than convincing... but I'll take another look.
@Mark: is there anything you actually know the truth about? AIDS did not start with the gay population. It's widely agreed upon that patient zero (the first human infected) was a bushman in Africa that was infected by coming into contact with infected chimps. It's then passed among the human population in any number of ways (hetro sex, blood transfusions, sharing needles, etc.).
It's not usually worthwhile to reply to Mark (he's SO ignorant and predjudiced) but in this case the misinformation might convince someone.
And this is what this blog is all about. For Marshal, it's all about people controlling their desires. Marshall is a hold over from 17th century Massachusetts, a Puritan. Sex is for procreation only. Sex is for married man and wife only. Sex is not what YOU want it to be. Sex is what Marshall wants it to be.
To understand this is to understand everything about Marshall and this blog.
Of course all sorts of illness is passed between people of both sexes. That alone only shows why immature sex is bad behavior. Such includes homosex practices, but also fornication and adultery. I haven't time right now to go into any details, but I did want to comment on Mark's remark. I hate to oppose him on the general position, but we don't need to deal in such things that aren't really unique to homos.
They aren't unique to homos now, Art. But the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact. In fact, the first AIDS joke I ever heard went like this:
Q: What's the hardest thing about having AIDS?
A: Trying to convince your mother you're a Haitian.
My point was that illnesses of all sorts are transmitted between people of all sexes, with some being STDs transmitted through intercourse in the normal way. Syphillis, gonorhea(sp), herpes, just to name a few, have been transmitted between the sexes for eons, as you know. So the point was that the transmission of disease isn't unique to homos and not a worthy point to use against them since the same sort of things happen between men and women. Call it a wash.
I would point to their sexual practices, but the they and their enablers like to point out that many of their sexual practices are engaged in by heteros as well. But while this is true, straight intercourse is not harmful between men and women provided no other factors, such as disease or poor hygiene complicate the situation. The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used. This opens up the partners to disease just by the damage they do to each other and the illness and short lives common among the homo community have unnecessarily orphaned adopted children.
Mark wrote: "the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact."
Hmmm. "fact" you say... let's see your evidence for this "fact" - because it's common knowledge to anyone who actually looks into it that this is false.
Patient zero - the first human infected - caught it from chimps. It happened in Africa and was a bushman likely eating chimps. It then spread among humans in any number of ways (the least likely being that these bushman engaged in gay sex.)
The fact is that patient zero did not get the disease from being "exclusively gay" as Mark likes to believe.
MA wrote: "The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
"meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for? I will agree that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex or oral sex - but I can't agree with the 'not what they're meant for' statement.
"This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
"meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for?"
Joe. C'mon. Meant by whom? How about nature, biology or God who created all things? This is an angle that makes me shake my head with sadness when attempts to present it occur. What a member is meant for and what the person to whom the member is attached chooses to use it for are two very different and distinct things. I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design. The anus is not meant for penetration or it would be equipped with a means of lubrication as is the vagina. The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it. To use a body part for a task not related to its design is to put it at risk. Purposely exposing one's self (not to mention one's partner) to risk makes the act in question wrong. It's not as if there is a trade off such as the risk one might put one's self through by running through flames so as to escape a burning room. It's done for selfish pleasure with the hope that harm is not inflicted. That also makes it wrong. The homo lobby seeks to change our culture and laws in a manner that legitimizes bad behavior, which is bad because of the harm done.
MA wrote: "I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design."
That's exactly it. You talk about "purpose of its design" - but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution - which doesn't involve "design" at all.
MA cont'd: "The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it."
Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs... it's had to be over the millenia since it's used for eating, drinking, breathing, kissing, etc.
MA cont'd: "It's done for selfish pleasure..."
I think this is the crux of the problem... pleasure is always "selfish" by definition. Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!
This is truly the only life we get - I don't believe in ANY afterlife - and thus it's all about pleasure NOW/today! It DISpleases me to harm another so I avoid that. I see nothing (necessarily) wrong with "selfish pleasure", in fact - I think it's to be actively sought!
If life isn't fun, if it's all about adjusting pleasurable behavior because god wouldn't like it, I don't see what the point is. If you're not having fun then what have you got??
First of all, you are reading revisionist history off a web site that is well known to be Liberally biased. Wikipedia's articles are contributed by it's readers. It is far from an infallible source. Often times it is accurate but oftentimes it's not. If you want reliable facts, you want to go to some official history website, not a website where the articles come from contributors who may have an agenda.
Your story of how AIDS began is wrong. I am old enough to remember when the presence of AIDS and it's inception was first reported by the news agencies, which, BTW, were considerably less biased than they are nowadays.
The first reported occurrence of AIDS was determined to have been caused by at least one man having sex with green monkeys. Apparently, the man was a homosexual who was having some difficulty finding a male partner so he decided it might be fun to hook up with an animal. In the ensuing few years, AIDS was passed exclusively from one homosexual to the next, except for some curious cases that showed up in Haitians. Interestingly enough, Green Monkeys are indigenous to Haiti and Africa. It was only after homosexuals increased their sexual activity among members of the opposite sex that the virus crossed gender lines. Then, not surprisingly, people who were given blood transfusions were inadvertently affected by the AIDS virus before doctors discovered the connection.
And that is how it started and that is how it became more than just a homosexual's disease.
Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business. I think I safely eliminated all need of further talk of the origins of AIDS by conceding that the transmission of STDs is not the sole province of bad behavior of the homo variety. Thus, it makes all sex outside of marriage bad behavior. So, no more talk of sex with monkeys. Move on back to the topic.
"You talk about "purpose of its design" - but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution - which doesn't involve "design" at all."
Joe, please. This statement in intellectually dishonest. Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part. If you want to go with evolution as a crap shoot, there still is intent in the function of body parts. What a part is used for is subjective choice, but to say a given body part has no distinct purpose, even as a result of a species evolving is ludicrous. Such statements don't give you a whole lot of room to denigrate Mark's comments.
"Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs..."
To an extent, but there are a lot of tobacco chewers that wish it was a hell of a lot better. There are a lot of dead whores and homos who would say as much as well. I didn't say the mouth had NO defenses, I said if it wasn't designed for more than eating or drinking, it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it." You even copied my words and got it wrong.
"I think this is the crux of the problem... pleasure is always "selfish" by definition."
Not the point, thus, not the crux. Worse, it's an example of taking words out of context. You create a meaning the whole sentence doesn't convey, particularly without the other sentences that surround it. Try not to do that (except for humor, when it's OK---as long as it's really funny)
"Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!"
Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind. What makes this pleasure selfish is the fact that the sex is done with full knowledge of what is at stake, what the consequences might by and then that knowledge is dismissed and ignored without the consequences being mitigated. The participants don't give a rat's ass about the consequences but only the pleasure they hope to have. If I'm availing myself of the pleasure of watching the Chicago Cubs play like crap, it is not selfish. If I'm doing so while my wife is doing all the chores, that's selfish of me. Doing something for one's self and enjoying it isn't selfish. It's doing it when more important things are at stake or doing things at the expense of others.
Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic. It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun. I have lots of fun. I know people with stronger faith than I, living a more devoutly faithful life, and having a hell of a good time. Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong. You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God. How sad.
MA wrote: "Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business."
(in a whiny kid's voice) But he started it!! ;)
Ok - I won't continue with Mark.
MA wrote: "Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part."
Fair enough... I concede this point. There are some obvious functions that certain body parts have (the heart pumps blood for instance). I don't think this can be applied to every body part (what is the purpose of toe nails?) but it clearly works for some.
I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though. Head hair's normal function/purpose (for example) is to keep the head warm. I don't think it's "bad" to shave your head though. The normal function/purpose of ears to absorb sound but I don't think it's bad to use them for decoration with earrings. I don't see anything wrong with using a body part for something other than what it evolved to do.
MA wrote: "Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind."
I already said that I was guessing here (assuming) - I know you haven't said this and didn't mean to imply that you had.
MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."
No doubt. It struck a nerve.
MA cont'd: "It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun."
I certianly didn't mean to imply that believing in god means "no fun". No way - you're proof that this isn't the case (I'm assuming - again - that you do have fun.)
I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time. If the fun doesn't hurt anybody - and just offends god - then I'm all for having that fun!!
MA cont'd: "Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong."
You're right - I didn't mean to. I think I cleared that up with my previous paragraph.
"You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God."
Um... no. I seek pleasure because pleasure is FUN! Why does god have to factor into everything??
"I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though."
But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well. By that I mean when heteros engage in the same activities for which homos are known. But even something as simple as kissing is bad in the sense that germ transmission takes place. Kissing isn't as likely to cause severe harm in otherwise healthy people, but the point is that the act isn't an intended function of the mouth and when used outside its function, risk of harm is hightened. With other acts perpetrated by homos upon each other, the risk is significantly higher and becomes more guaranteed when practiced with greater frequency.
"MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."
No doubt. It struck a nerve."
Not really an appropriate phrase here. Not so much "struck a nerve" as "touched a chord" as in feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth, whether intentional or the result of never really seeking the truth. Take some time to visit WinteryKnight, 4Simpsons (Eternity Matters), or Winging It, all of whom have wonderful apologetics links that can help you better understand why believing God doesn't exist is foolishness.
(Note to all: some other blogs on my blogroll may also have some good links and those under "Left Ones" may have some links of their own. But those I've listed I've looked at myself and they are all great sources. Can't say as much for the "Left Ones".)
"I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time."
It's hardly a "waste of time" to live life in a manner pleasing to God. He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer. The arguments supporting the truth of God's existence are all based on tangible evidence as well as logic and reason. (Faith is not blind, but reason based.) Those who dismiss these arguments do so with less logic and reason and very little evidence for their counter arguments.
"Why does god have to factor into everything??"
Because in the end, it's all about God. The big mistake is to think it is all about ourselves.
MA wrote: "But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well."
No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences... not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do".
Breathing might lead you to lung cancer... should we stop breathing?
I think ~everyone~ should practice the safest sex they can... but abstinence taking it too far. The benifits ( of sex) outweight the possible harm.
MA cont'd: "But even something as simple as kissing is bad..."
Exactly! But I bet you kiss people... it's well worth the 'risk' right?!
MA wrote: "...feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth..."
LOL! Don't feel too bad... I'm doing fine. ;)
MA cont'd: "Take some time to visit..."
That's OK - I'm good. Thanks for the offer though.
(incidentally I'm commenting back and forth with 4simpsons right now on his site)
MA wrote: "He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer."
I guess if I believed that I might take your stance too... I suppose if you ~really~ do believe that then you've got to act accordingly - that makes sense.
It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!
"No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences... not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do"."
This just isn't the case at all. The info I presented shows that they will have bad consequences. It's more a matter of if they can negotiate those bad consequences to live a full life. If doing so means a minimum number of years, they lose there as well on average and that is because of their lifestyle. Conversely, married heteros do not suffer from the engagement of sexual practices that are natural and biologically compatible with their physiology. Indeed, married hetero couples have typically the longest lifespan when compared with homos or even single heteros.
"Breathing might lead you to lung cancer... should we stop breathing?"
You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process. So if you're talking about purposely breathing what the lungs are designed to process, that would be a stupid comparison.
A better one would be smoking or intentionally inhabiting an environment because the air is foul and poisonous. Breathing clean air is comparable to having sex with one's spouse, because that is what is intended. Breathing foul air, as with smoking, is comparable to two men having sexual relations, because both conflict with the natural function of the body parts involved and lead to damage and premature death.
"But I bet you kiss people... it's well worth the 'risk' right?!"
Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave. I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth. Are you starting to see how this analogy and comparison thing works? You're doing pretty much the same thing that Vinny was doing. Ya gotta keep it apples to apples.
"That's OK - I'm good. Thanks for the offer though."
But if you're going to try to diminish the argument of another because of God, or your insistence that there isn't one, you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position. Simply not believing based on next to nothing doesn't serve you, even if you perceive your situation as being "good". It's very much like engaging in bad sexual behavior because it appeals to you, all the while it is damaging your body and shortening your life. It's always better to know the facts.
"It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!"
Like what? Sex? I haven't given it up by a longshot. But at the same time, as great as sex is, it isn't all that great. I've used this line before and it confuses people. I hope you get the meaning because it really is about as accurate as anything can be.
Aside from that, I can't think of too many "great" things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here.
MA wrote: "You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process."
I think you meant 'what the lungs evolved to process'. ;)
There are many many toxins in the 'fresh air' that people enjoy, we only process the oxygen - but only about %20 or so of our air is oxygen - so most of what we breath is not what the lungs are able to process. We're risking life every time we breath (not that we have another choice). My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!
"Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave."
So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then. The kinds of sickness you can get from kissing isn't enough to deter you, but the potential sickness you can get from promiscuous sex ~is~. Fair enough - you're willing to risk, but you're conservative with the risks you take.
But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves... I don't agree with that.
Except that you then wrote: "I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth."
You mean you wouldn't stop kissing her altogether?!? But you want to stop gay people from doing what they do. It doesn't add up.
MA wrote: "you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position."
I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks... do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense? That's how I am with religion. I see no need for it the way I see no need for fairies in my garden being responsible for my beatiful tomatoes. I'm not going to read up about the arguments for fairies in my garden anymore than I'm going to read up on all of the millions of different flavours of god(s) out there.
MA asked: "I can't think of too many 'great' things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here."
I'm sure it's different for each individual, and I don't know you well enough to know ~what~ you deprive yourself of. But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin. This, while not a big deal AT ALL, is something you miss out on. It's fun, and something my wife understands as she does it with men. So what? It's a little harmless fantasy...
You might not be one of them - but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs.
Like I said - I know you have fun, I know you love life. I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad.
"My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!"
The same can be said of life in general without being mere hyperbole. But the point is that the extent to what the body can tolerate is known yet to the best of our abilities we take pains to avoid that which is harmful. That is, if one is normal and rational. And if one is, one does not overexpose themselves to poor air quality if one can help it. In the same manner, normal and rational people, and those can include those with abnormal and irrational desires--pretty much everyone to one extent or another, avoid behaviors that are harmful. Practicing homos and sluts of both sexes are not in that number.
"So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then."
To some degree, yes, particularly in light of the above statements regarding life being risky. If your wife has an outbreak of open herpes sores on and/or in her mouth, would you not withhold your oral expressions of your affections for at least the duration of the episode, or swap spit nonetheless? (of course you realize I'm not suggesting she has any communicable diseases whatsoever)
"But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves..."
Aside from the fact that hundreds of laws and regulations do this already, I haven't made that suggestion myself in this post with the exception of the introduction of innocent children who are given no choice in the matter.
I will say that I object to state sanctioning of harmful and immoral behaviors through licensing or certifications. As a society, our laws and regs, licensings and certifications should revolve around encouraging the best possible behavior and discouraging bad behavior. I believe that used to be the rule of thumb. That would satisfy your next statement about denying homos their desire to be perverted with each other. There's no way to prevent people from being stupid or even from being malicious, but our laws should reflect society's desire to discourage it. There are many things people do that are stupid that are not illegal.
"I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks... do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense?"
Your statements suggest quite a substantial lack of pertinent information to justify your position. I dismiss things like flat earth or astrology because they're baseless and have nothing to counter what I do believe. I know that from investigating them. That not all alternate possibilities require much time to refute is not my fault. The flat earth thing is particularly quick to refute.
Christianity is a bit more complex and supported by facts and evidence from more than a few fields of study. But I wonder how much of the basics is foreign to you. For example, you refer to the Bible (at Neil's) as "some book". I would hope you realize that the Bible is a collection of books. The Gospels, for example, are four separate authors giving an account of a particular person in history. Other historians of the time, but not of the faith, speak of the same person to one degree or another. Archeology has corroborated much of the Bible's stories, but never proven any of it false. There's plenty to satisfy reason if one takes the time to actually study it. It's nothing like fairies in your garden. Indeed, there is more evidence that supports the truth of the Bible, of Jesus and what and who He said He was, then for any other ancient figure that you take for granted. Tons more.
"But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin."
There's a difference between appreciating a woman's beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her. The former doesn't equate to lust, which is the latter.
But this is another indication of your lack of knowledge, a lack of knowledge that provoked my comment about how well you know your own position. You make comments like this one about the faith (and others that I've read over at Neil's blog) that are no better than superficial perceptions. You ask why is lust bad, but it really only takes a little thought to come up with a good reason of your own, one that is likely on point, provided you're being intellectually honest in your pursuit of the truth.
But such questions and statements lend validity to the Biblical assertion that the things of God are foolish to the non-believer. And really, if there is no God then that would still not be totally true. But I don't know that I've ever seen a teaching of God, meant for spiritual things, that didn't have an equally practical value for the physical as well. This is most apparent in the sexual realm as we've seen all sorts of problems that are related to a relaxed attitude about sexuality. I hope I don't need to list them yet again, but I will if need be. Most of it while people with attitudes similar to you speak of "safe sex". Thus, this following statement of yours becomes more foolish:
"...but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs."
What we believe aligns with science. Science supports our policy proposals that align with our beliefs. My links have shown that to be the case with the issue that provoked this post.
"I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad."
Depriving yourself of God's salvation because of anything, particularly something as insignificant and base as lust is far sadder and not a little pathetic. Exposing yourself to risk for a little pleasure is as well. Exposing children to the risks outlined in the links is something far worse.
73 comments:
Yep, that is super-creepy. Typical of the selfishness of people -- gay or straight -- who only think of themselves and not the children. Easy divorce, deliberate single parenting, gay parenting -- it is all sad.
These twins will obviously have two loving, caring and able parents.
And your bigotry is the highest form of selfishness. Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart when I read your bigoted tripe.
These twins will have two selfish, self-centered deviants who are thinking of children as accessories but not of what's best for children. I fully support the "right" of such people to abuse themselves in what ever manner they find pleasing in the privacy of their own four walls. I just wish they'd leave children out of it. Try actually researching this issue, Jim, before you blather on stupidly about bigotry. I reccommend Jennifer Rorback Morse for sensible perspective on the issue of marriage and child-raising.
Or, you could actually show evidence that the author of the article has it wrong. That would be a nice change.
I recently reconnected with a friend from college who is raising twelve-year old twin girls with his partner. They seem to be happy well-adjusted children and my friend and his partner seem to be loving parents.
I'm sure the twins will grow up and make some psychiatrist some money.
Allowing gays to adopt (or in this case, incubate) children) is the ultimate child abuse.
Forcing innocent children to grow up in a home where rampant sexual deviancy abounds will do nothing but create some seriously screwed up kids.
I wonder...how old will the twins be the first time Neil or David or one of their pervert friends molests them?
It's not a question of if they will be molested. It is a question of when.
Good for you Vinny. Are you really good enough at child psychology to make such a judgement after "just reconnecting"? Do you know if they adopted (which is bad enough) or like the jerks in the article, dealt with a third party (an actual parent of the girls with whom they'll never connect) purposely depriving them of the guidance and influence of the parent of the other sex?
I feel so sorry for kids today and how they are forced to deal with the self-serving attitudes of those who dare call themselves resonsible adults. And so much of it over sex. And I'm given so much shit from lefties that I'm obsessed with sex!
Now, unlike Mark, I'm not one to believe that every homo or lesbian is automatically a child molester soon to use the kids to get their jollies. But willfully bringing into existence a child knowing the child will be deprived the benefit of being raised by one man and one woman as each child is meant to, and doing it just to satisfy a selfish desire to pretend to be just like a normal couple is without a doubt abusive to the child, regardless to what degree the child is affected by the act. That someone as smart as you, Vinny, can't see that I find simply beyond comprehension.
I can handle the stupidly inaccurate charge of bigotry being leveled against me when I stand up for truth. I consider the source. But I can't handle kids being used in such a cavalier manner. The welfare of the kids is not priority in these cases. Only the selfish desires of the "adults" have any weight. Shame on such people, and shame on those who support them.
Ouch. That hurt.
You have the nerve to call me an ignorant Bigot, but you support the worst racists in our society today. You think yourself tolerant of hedonistic, perverted, deviant lifestyles but you aren't tolerant of anyone who has a different opinion than yours.
I find your intolerance of my intolerance intolerable.
Marshall,
I wasn't offering an expert opinion, just my impression. I don't know how the children came to be under their care.
"These twins will obviously have two loving, caring and able parents."
Well, sure, because you can always trust what celebrities say when being interviewed on national TV. That has to be a precise reflection of their private lives.
"And your bigotry is the highest form of selfishness."
So criticizing people for deliberately depriving a child of a mother is worse than deliberately depriving a child of a mother? Got it.
Vinny,
I'm sorry if I leapt to a conclusion your comments weren't meant to convey. I really feel strongly about this apart from my standard opposition to the homosex agenda in general. It isn't just homos who are so thoughtless regarding children. And it is also separate from a general and genuine concern for kids that a given homo might have. But the assumption that it won't make any difference to kids is exactly the opposite position anyone should have.
Can a homo provide a good environment for a child? Of course. I would never say it is impossible. The question is what is best for a child. In the situation depicted in the link, the child's well being is plainly not a consideration. As I said, the assumption is that there is no difference so no objection is legitimate and worthy of serious consideration. This is patently false and selfish on their part. No study has ever supported this assumption without later, upon deeper investigation, found to be lacking.
I have four sisters. Two had children and two did not. One of the ones who didn’t should have because she is one of the best people with children I have ever seen. Unfortunately, she was never very lucky with men. However, if she had ever wound up as a single parent, I would have rated her children luckier then most children who grow up with two parents.
All other things being equal, I agree that a child is better off with a mother and father who are married. All other things very rarely are equal though. People vary widely in their aptitude as parents. On average, children with a mother and a father do better, but I suspect that this is mostly because their odds of having at least one parent who is good at parenting are double those of children with only one parent. I think children with one good parent are better off than children with two crappy ones.
Ideally, the love that a husband and wife have for each other increases their capacity to love and that excess capacity spills out on the children. Many marriages are far from ideal though. People often marry for selfish and egotistical reasons and they often have children for selfish and egotistical reasons. No one tries to tell such couples that they shouldn’t bring children into the world though.
Vinny,
I don't disagree with the general sentiment of you last comment. I would cut to the chase and state that I believe there are times when adoption of a child by a single person or even a homo couple could certainly be more beneficial to the child than not adopting. But the point here doesn't reflect extreme circumstances. The point here concerns those who think that their desires to have a child, for whatever reason, are so important and Constitutionally protected (neither of which is true), that they trump the needs and considerations for the child.
These celebrity homos aren't the only examples of this selfishness. You may be aware of the Jennifer Aniston flap that sprung from the plot of her new movie. That's the exact same pathetically selfish situation. These are people that only care about their own desire for a child. It's the desire they wish to realize, not the child itself.
But let's look at it a slightly different way. Your last few lines speak of hetero couples having children for the wrong reasons and I think we're in agreement that it constitutes a wrong. So the comparison has to be which child is better off if the parents had the child for selfish reason? The child of a heteo couple, the child of a single parent or the child of a homo couple? THAT'S an apples to apples type of comparison.
Then, you have to run the same question with the difference of responsible, loving people who have children for the ideal reasons. The answer will always come up the same: one man and one woman as the parents is the best for the kids.
(The only scenario where this might not work is if the hetero, homo and single parents are all total assholes. The kid needs to be removed from each arrangement.)
You're off base on this statement:
"On average, children with a mother and a father do better, but I suspect that this is mostly because their odds of having at least one parent who is good at parenting are double those of children with only one parent."
I think you'll find that the best studies show the benefit is a matter of the complementary nature of the man/woman union. From each partner the child draws something unique that forms the proper notions of marriage and family. The influence of a man is different than that of a woman. They each bring to the table different qualities unique to the gender that is lost in single parent or homo parent arrangements. It's not a matter of whether or not the child can survive the less than ideal situation. It's not a matter of unforseen circumstances putting the child in that situation. It's a matter of what's best for the child and whether anyone has the right to willingly and purposely put the child in that situation. The answer is an unequivical "Hell no!"
As to telling selfish hetero couples whether they can or can't have kids, that's not the point either. We all have the duty to kids to try to dissuade such people from breeding or adopting. But for such people who are singles or homos, and they all are who try to have kids by whatever method, we must, for the sake of children born or yet to be, force the issue by whatever means we legally and/or legislatively can, otherwise we are complicit in whatever harm the unfortunate children suffer, no matter how slight or devastating.
What about other factors?
Children born into poverty don’t do as well on average as children whose parents can afford to live in a safe neighborhood and send them to good schools. Children of overweight parents have a greater chance of obesity. Children whose parents have college degrees do better on average than children of parents who don’t finish high school. Children with a family history of alcoholism are more likely to be alcoholics. How about parents who prefer faith healing to standard medical practices? There are many identifiable factors that might make a child’s chances less than ideal.
There are also countless examples of children from less ideal homes that turn out better than children from more ideal homes. Couples who seem to have everything going for them sometimes turn out rotten kids and couples who are clueless sometimes turn out great kids. The averages are just averages.
I think the distinction between slight and devastating suffering is a very big matter. I don’t think the government should be regulating whether particular women can have children and whether they can give those children to specific people for adoption unless the potential harm is significantly and demonstrably greater than the potential harm from any of the factors that we choose not to regulate.
But you're still comparing apples to oranges. You have to compare according to kind. You mention obesity. OK. Which scenario would be the most beneficial for a child: Obese hetero couple, obese homo couple or an obese single parent? It would have to be the obese hetero parents.
Poverty? Impoverished hetero parents, impoverished homo parents or impoverished single parent? Here, the ideal, the best scenario from among the choices would still be the hetero parents.
(Again, if we're talking about alcoholics, then I'd prefer none of them have children in their care. Actually, I'd also prefer that impoverished people avoid having children until they can provide for them properly.)
"I think the distinction between slight and devastating suffering is a very big matter."
Again, you miss the point, which was that no matter how great or slight the harm, it should not be purposely inflicted upon children. Since in every comparable situation, the best is for a child to be raised by his own biological mother and father, then to purposely choose to bring a child into existence knowing it will be deprived of one or the other is to inflict harm purposely, even if the harm is slight. To support others doing it, to oppose efforts to deny others from doing it, is to be complicit in that harm visited upon the child. The degree of harm is totally inconsequential and irrelevant to this truth.
The government already has a hand in determining what a suitable environment is for a child when speaking of adoption. It can already remove children from environments that are determined to be detrimental. The problem now is that because of activism rather than science, placing children in homes of homos is not seen as detrimental.
I've already stated that circumstances can exist that dictate a child is better off in a homo home rather than a given alternative. But to view that as no different than a hetero home is simply a lie. THAT'S borne out by the serious studies. Because of that, I could only support a child placed in such a situation as a temporary measure because a child thrives best in the care of a married hetero couple and every effort should be made to see that a child gets that.
In the case of the Harris and Burtka, it's far worse because they are intentionally impregnating a woman in order to deprive the child of its mother. Jennifer Anniston defends a woman's right to do the same, by impregnating herself, then denying the child it's father. These are people that care for children? Who you crappin?
As a point of clarification, I totally reject the concept of anyone having a "right" to have children. It is NOT a right. It's a privilege and responsibility TO THE CHILD. I have always opposed the notion of artificial insemination, in vitro and any artificial means of procreation because lives are created that are lost, disposed of or stored like freakin' canned goods until someone decides to allow them to gestate. All of this is a result of a warped idea of family and procreation, generally that some adult is thinking of themselves so much that the consequences of these "medical miracles" are ignored as long as the selfish are satisfied in the end.
Harris and his "wife" should get a dog.
I think you are missing the point. Studies are based on average results. On average, children raised by a mother and a father do better than children raised by only one parent, but there are lots of exceptions on both sides. Some single parents do a great job and some couples do a crappy job. There are also some completely random outcomes. Some kids turn out rotten even though their parents did the best job imaginable and some kids from really crappy families turn out great. There are a lot of different factors that affect the outcome and it is rarely possible to be certain why a specific child turned out well or badly.
So the question is when we make an absolute rule out of any specific factor based on average results. When do we forbid certain categories of people from having or raising children because children in that category do worse on average than other children? If there are many children in that category who turn out fine, is it right to make an absolute prohibition?
That is why obesity and poverty and family health histories are relevant. They are all factors which on average influence how children turn out. We could make absolute prohibitions based on any of these factors.
Crap. I think my computer is toast. It won't power up completely and says the program for Windows is corrupted. I'm supposed to load the start up CD, but it opens through clicking on-screen icons. THERE'S NO BUTTON ON THE COMPUTER TO OPEN THE CD HOLDER!!! At least none I can find. DAMN! I hope it hasn't totally crashed. Gotta get the son-in-law, who's a computer geek, to rescue me once again. Let's hope this one doesn't fail me.
I think that last comment before Vinny's last is a screen name of my daughter. But she doesn't use my computer anymore! Hmmm. "TomatocrazyLovi" Naw!
So anyway, Vinny,
You can't use exceptions to justify bad decisions. Or if you don't like that term, then you can't use exceptions to justify purposeful choices of what the averages say are options that don't best serve the child. You could just as easily say that not all children suffer permanent brain damage from blunt trauma to the head. But no one would think of head banging as an acceptable option for dealing with a child. Extreme example, no doubt, but we're talking about purposely making a choice that the averages say is less than ideal, and more often than not, detrimental to the well being of the child to one degree or another.
And yet again, I must remind you that examples have to be consistent. I'm comparing children raised by their biological parents, that is, a father and a mother, against other arrangements of parenting. Throwing in obesity, wealth or anything else can only be vaid if within the context of that kind of comparison, i.e., obese biological father and mother vs. obese homo parents or obese single parents. You insist on mixing them up. That's why I said things like obesity are irrelevant; not that such a condition is irrelevant to child rearing, but irrelevant in a discussion specifically about the effects on a child due to whether or not the child is raised in a traditional family or another arrangement.
Here's another variation: If you want to use the obesity angle, it has to used in the following manner to be a good comparison for what Harris and the other perv are doing:
A fat hetero couple want to have a child. As they plan for the blessed event, they decide, on purpose, that they will raise the kid on the same crappy diet that has rendered the both of them unable to ever again see their own feet. In this they have chosen willfully to raise their child in a manner that is detrimental to the child.
But I don't think that's common with fat people. I don't think they "plan" to fatten their child. They just don't think in terms of healthy diets. It's more a matter of lazy thinking than willful neglect.
There is no way, however, that one can deny that Harris is purposely denying the twins they are "expecting" a mother. That is willful. It's on purpose. And they don't f**king care about the kids enough to give damn. All they care about is having children and playing house. Absolutely such disregard should be restricted, just as other forms of child abuse compel society to act in the child's interest. And just as other forms so compel society, society is justified in acting to prevent such disregard from being perpetrated on children before the fact.
All abuse of children is actionable by gov't right now. The degree to which abuse provokes gov't intervention has changed in the past fifty years or so to the point where the method of discipline common back then is enough for social workers to step in and remove kids from their homes. It's a question of degrees and I believe the line that is already drawn should be altered to include this situation. I want to sharpen the focus of that by saying that I'm still referring to instances where such things are planned in advance; purposely depriving kids of a mother or a father, as opposed to unexpected circumstances putting kids in such a situation. (A newly widowed mother shouldn't lose her kids)
Congrats to Doogie and his husband... Neil (Doogie) seems to have his head on straight - one of the few child actors to turn into a responsible, likable, well rounded adult. He'll make an excellent dad I bet!
There is a study recently published that makes the case that lesbian couples make better parents than hetro ones... As Vinny so eloquently puts it: 'there are exceptions to every rule.'...But while studies like this are only part of the story... they go a long way in fighting the bigotry and homophobia displayed by so many christians these days (hint hint Mark!).
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/08/lesbian-parents-their-well-adjusted-kids-what-the-study-really-means/
Marshall wrote: "we're talking about purposely making a choice that the averages say is less than ideal, and more often than not, detrimental to the well being of the child to one degree or another."
Do you have any evidence that "more often than not" gay parents have a detrimental effect on the children?? Any studies? Anything other than your homophobia to go on here?
Marshall cont'd: "I must remind you that examples have to be consistent. I'm comparing children raised by their biological parents, that is, a father and a mother, against other arrangements of parenting."
But you're talking about denying certain people their chance to be parents! If you're going to say 'gay parents aren't ideal' that's one thing... because 'single parents aren't ideal', 'poor parents aren't ideal'. etc.... There are a whole host of parenting practices that might not fall into your "ideal". But they're out there... and they're doing fine.
Your version of the ideal parents hardly exists anymore... get over it. Single parents abound - are you attempting to limit these arrangements? No? Just the gays huh.... not fair.
With blunt trauma, we understand how the damage comes about and we understand that there is no potential for positive results. The point of the exceptions is that we don’t always know why a particular factor leads to a particular result. Based on the averages, we may conclude that having only one parent is a disadvantage—just as the averages tell us that poverty, lack of education, and obesity are disadvantages—but we know that the disadvantage is often overcome by other qualities the single parent may possess. By the same token, on average having both a mother and a father may be an advantage, but we know that this advantage often comes to naught due to other parental shortcomings.
The question is why we would come up with a blanket prohibition based on a disadvantage. In the case of blunt trauma, the results are so overwhelmingly negative and there is no evidence whatsoever that the disadvantages can be overcome by other factors. With regard to child rearing, the results are not overwhelming one-sided and there is ample evidence to indicate that disadvantages can be overcome.
No one can deny that the disadvantage of not having a mother can be overcome. Moreover, no one can say for certain that Mr. and Mrs. Doogie’s children will not be happy and well adjusted and no one can say that they will not someday make a valuable contribution to society.
But Vinny and Joe, you haven't addressed Mark's assertion have you?
"[H]ow old will the twins be the first time Neil or David or one of their pervert friends molests them? ... It's not a question of if they will be molested. It is a question of when."
C'mon, Vinny. You're reaching now.
"With blunt trauma, we understand how the damage comes about and we understand that there is no potential for positive results."
First of all, the point was that with blunt trauma, there are exceptions. Not all blunt trauma results in permanent damage. Billions of people (give or take) suffer blunt trauma at least once in their lives, with many other experiencing multiple incidents over the course of their lives. One could certainly say that each sustained some kind of damage, maybe permanent, but not all show any effects of that damage ever in their lives. I'm setting myself up really well here, but I'll stick my neck out anyway: I took several severe shots to the skull during my youth, particularly pre-teen years, with one knocking me unconscious and leaving a massive bump on my forehead that made me look like a mongoloid child. As a result of some recent health issues, I underwent a brain scan which showed no issues whatsoever. So there ya go. I'm proof that not all blunt trauma results in serious effects. Yet, we would not advise subjecting one's self, and certainly not children, to blunt trauma.
In the same way, we know that children are harmed by being deprived of either a mother or a father. Not that they can't overcome it or live without the harm manifesting. THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!! The point is purposely denying the child one or the other parent and doing so not because the shitheads doing it give a rat's ass whether or not the kid may thrive or not despite the loss, but simply because the shithead cares only about HIM/HERself and how badly they want to have a child. I don't understand why this is lost on you.
As regards positive results from blunt trauma, I insist there are no positive results from purposely denying the child a mother or father. In each case, there is simply the child developing positively in spite of the blunt trauma or denial of the missing parent. You again try to make a bad comparison. My use of the blunt trauma example was to respond to the point of exceptions to the averages. On average, blunt trauma is a very bad thing for anyone's skull. Not all suffer lasting effects. On average, being denied a mother or a father is a very bad thing for anyone's psyche. Not all suffer lasting effects. But because the averages, hell, common sense, dictates that both are very bad things, to do either on purpose is abusive.
(I must again stress that there is a distinction between purposely putting a child in a bad situation and the child through unexpected or uncontrollable circumstances being put in a bad situation. I repeat this for Joe's benefit, as he has joined the conversation and seems to be repeating points already covered. I'll get to Joe specifically later.)
There have been many kids who have lived through atrocities, such as Jews in concentration camps and other similar situations. Many who survived such horrors went on to be contributing citizens leading normal to exceptional lives. But we don't abide putting kids in those situations on purpose. People have overcome all sorts of physical and psychological traumas of every degree, but we don't knowingly risk putting a child into one and doing so "for the chance to have children" is reprehensible.
Gotta go.
No blunt traumas are good. No blunt traumas are better than the absence of blunt traumas. There are no offsetting positive factors that would ever make blunt trauma better than the absence of blunt trauma.
Many single parent homes are good. Many single parent homes are better than many dual parent homes. There are many potential positives that can offset the negative of not having a mother or a father.
You're doing it again, Vinny. It's not that blunt traumas are any good. The point was to say that like being deprived of a mother or father, one can survive blunt trauma without lasting effects, or at least effects that aren't outwardly manifested or felt. I'm trying to compare apples to apples here and you insist on straying to other produce.
But though people have been known to survive blunt trauma, that some defy the averages, one does not purposely subject themselves to blunt trauma.
As a most rambunctious boy, I experience tons of injuries, including blunt trauma that rendered me unconscious and left a lump on my forehead that made me look like a mongoloid child. I didn't even recognize myself. I took other blows to the head (but that was by far the worst) that left me concussed. There was even one about 25 years or so ago that was the result of heavy drinking that left me with vertigo for about a week. A battery of tests for a health issue included a brain scan (MRI) and it showed absolutely no problems.
I grew up without a father after he passed when I was nine. I can look back now and see times where his absence made situations more difficult. I could list a dozens of ways having him around could have made growing up easier and things father teach I had to learn on my own, not even really knowing that was what I was doing. And I definitely felt the loss every time I saw my friends interact with their fathers. Do you honestly think that those well adjusted children of single parents and homos don't go through that, even if only a little bit? What kind of asshole purposely puts a kid through that? What kind of asshole thinks he has the right to roll the dice with a child's psyche, just to satisfy his/her own selfish desire to have a kid?
Hopefully, unlike Joe, you've noticed that this isn't the usual anti-homo rant typical of this blog. It's a pro-child rant. I can't believe you aren't catching on and jumping on board. Are you so "queer" for the "gay rights" agenda that you'll ignore what's best for kids? Are you going to throw in with Joe and stand behind that discredited study to which he linked that was done by lesbians?
(Well just to stay consistent with the righteous position of this blog as far as the agenda goes, Harris' abnormal desires proves he does not have his head on straight. His decision to succomb to his abnormal desires proves he does not have his head on straight. Joe supporting Harris in his abnormal desires shows that JOE doesn't have HIS head on straight.)
For a more direct response to Joe, I decide to provide a few links of my own.
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
This first one is notable because one of the criteria of the author was to use only those studies done by homosexuals so as not to risk a skew by ant-homo researchers.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html
This one and
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/whatabouththechildren.html
this one are from Christian sites where they cite studies of others.
http://shakinandshinin.org/HomosexualParenting-PartII.html
This one is from the Family Research Council, and the studies they cite are crapped on by the doctor from this one:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
I would point out, however, that the doctor in the last link states that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. But like all other studies I've seen that say the same thing, they fail to address the obvious fact that we are created, by either God or nature, in two sexes. This means that we are created to join with the opposite sex. People (or animals) that don't are abnormal. There's something disordered about them. I'm also not about to go through every study cited by FRC and compare them with the objections of Herek and then present exhaustive conclusions here. Those don't cover the real issue anyway, which regards the effects on children being raised by singles or homos. The first one does that really well, and the other three demonstrate other concerns that society should consider before assuming that there is just no difference and no affect on children put in those situations.
I briefly scanned one of Art's links. One point I would make about the various studies:
I noticed the use of the term "bi-sexual" used as if it is somehow different than homosexuality. Make no mistake. People who insist they are not homosexual but are only bisexual are nevertheless, still deviants. There is no third term that makes one only partly or halfway abnormal.
Another point I will make:
In an early post on my own blog I wrote a few years ago, I discussed a study conducted by some pro-homosexual researchers wherein they placed a male gene into a female fruit fly and then watched as the genetically altered fruit fly attempted to seduce and have sex with another female fruit fly.
The researchers claimed this proved homosexuality was genetic.
In fact, it proved just the opposite.
Without artificially altering the genetic makeup of the female fruit fly, it would have never attempted the seduction of another female. That proves homosexuality does not exist in nature.
Thus, homosexuality is not natural nor is it normal, and no amount of honest research will ever prove it is.
Do you honestly think that those well adjusted children of single parents and homos don't go through that, even if only a little bit?
I have no doubt that they do. What I doubt is that any of those well adjusted children would think that never having been born was preferable to going through life with a single parent. I think they would say "Gee. I wish I had two parents, but life is still good and I am happy that I have the relationship with the parent I do have and I am glad to be alive."
I grew up as the youngest in a family of nine. My parents were good people but by the time I came along they didn't have the time and energy to devote the kind of attention to me that my oldest siblings got. I was sometimes jealous of the kids whose parents came to all their little league games and school plays. I think there were times when it might have helped if my parents were more aware of problems I was having. On the other hand, there were many good things about my family that I wouldn't trade for anything. I don't wish that my parents had stopped at eight.
I suspect that Doogie's kids will wish at times that they had a more normal family life, but I suspect that they will still be glad to be alive and they won't think that never having been born was a preferable alternative.
"What I doubt is that any of those well adjusted children would think that never having been born was preferable to going through life with a single parent."
Irrelevant. How could one gauge such a think without first having been born anyway? It's another "after-the-fact argument". It's from the perspective of what has already taken place and is meaningless to the discussion. This concerns the choice to put the child in such situations, the morality of it, the selfishness of it and as the child wasn't given any consideration up front, it's kinda late, not to mention "moot", to worry about it now.
What is most troubling is that the issue of homosexuality is not a settled one to begin with. As stated, it's self-evidently a disorder but has been ignored by the psychiatric profession due to activism and not science. I wonder if you looked at any of the links I provided, particularly the first (I think it was) that spoke of the higher percentage of kids from homo environments that turn to homosexuality themselves. I wonder if you saw the bit about kid being orphaned after having been adopted because both the parents died prematurely due to their lifestyle. I wonder if you caught the part where kids are more often made to deal with broken homes as the average homo relationship is short-lived compared to the average hetero marriage. I wonder if it bothers you in the least that a higher percentage of kids in homo homes are made to deal with infidelity of their "parents", thus corrupting their understanding of family and marriage and what love really is. I wonder if you consider the fact that one needn't overtly feel the harm one has suffered to be negatively impacted by that harm. In the case of Harris, he's purposely putting kids in a situation where they must face some or all of these possibilities and rolling the dice that they'll come out of it just fine. I wonder what kind of odds Vegas would give such a thing with all the FACTS figured in?
Mark,
Regarding your first comment, one of the links speaks of a difference between pedophilia, which deals with small children, and another "philia" which deals with older kids. I believe it's the last link from a Dr that seems to dismiss claims of more molestation amongst homos. It's part of a larger report of his online. But, the point I want to make is that he wants to go out of his way to separate homos that are attracted to men and those attracted to teens and those attracted to boys to say that homos, I gues the "real men" among them, are only attracted to men and thus not a threat. But the same is true of heteros who are only attracted to women. So what? If one groups heteros in the same way, what do we have? We have heteros with hetero attractions though some are sickly attracted to little girls. And really, if we take little girls out of the equation, the idea of it being sick to be attracted to teens, even younger teens, is really a more modern attitude. Only two or three generations ago, marriages to 14 and 15 year old girls was not unheard of. Why would it be any different that some homos would find teen boys attractive as well? We all have preferences, don't we? Some prefer blondes. Some like a little extra meat. Some go for mature women and some for young.
This comes up in the discussions of homo priests, that they are somehow not homos because the target of their deviant affections are younger. But being homo is only a matter of the sex to which one is attracted. Men, teens, boys. Still homo attractions.
MA,
The fact that a person must be born in order to gauge such a thing doesn’t make it irrelevant. I am personally happy that my parents did not stop at eight children, but I can still form an opinion about whether having that many children is a good idea or not. Due to my wife’s health problems, we only had two children, but I don’t think that we would have had more than four or five in any case. However, I don’t think that the odds are so seriously stacked against a ninth child that I would assert that having that many is in any way immoral or that people should not be allowed to make that choice.
By the way, my sympathies on the loss of your father. I wasn’t close to my Dad as a child but I did get to know him better when I became an adult and my older siblings moved away and I felt lucky to have that relationship with him.
I hope that it will not offend you if I pose a hypothetical and ask a couple of questions: Suppose your father had been diagnosed with a terminal disease prior to your conception and your mother decided to become pregnant knowing that you would not have a father growing up. (1) Knowing what you went through, would you say that it would have been selfish or immoral for her to do that? (2) Would your answer to that depend on what kind of support your mother had, e.g., whether there were grandfathers or uncles who would be there to help? (3) If you did consider it immoral or selfish, would you say that what you went through was so bad that people should be prevented from doing that if possible?
Vinny,
Not offended in the least, but I appreciate your concern that it might offend.
I was a second child. The first, my brother, was already on hand to carry on the family name, which, I feel, is a reasonable exception to my position. With such a consideration, I can't see that the effects on the child were not properly weighed against the desire to have the family continue through the generations. Yet, even there, there is a bit of self-centeredness in the desire to prevent the line from dying out, yet it is seen as a more noble thing culturally. Can a homo use the same angle? If he tries, he's still doing the same thing within a far less noble context by insisting on preserving his "right" to engage in sex in a perverse manner. The homo sex is still taking precedence in the scenario because preserving the family line can still be done in the proper manner, the homo just thinks more of his "orientation" than anything else.
Aside from that caveat of legacy, I would insist that no, my mother would be selfish to insist on children knowing in advance that they would have no father. It would be better if she didn't, though not criminal if she did.
Grandfathers, uncles or male friends or step-fathers can be solid replacements for some aspects of the loss of a father (true also for female equivalents), but none are the same as having one's own biological father.
In general, people should, in the very least, be strongly discouraged from the notion that they should ever purposely seek to have a child without the child having both mother and father for it's development. The extent to which we do it legally/legislatively is another story and I've not thought through the possibilities. The problem is that people look at every possible desire they could ever have as a right to which they are Constitutionally entitled. That's not the case at all, and in this situation, I'm far more concerned for the impact on children than I'll ever be for the "rights" of people so obsessed with their sexual fetishes. I'd much rather adults be denied outright than to risk harming a child and work backwards from there.
I agree with you here, Marshall. They are having children for their own sake as though the childen were a project of theirs. That strikes me as a bad attitude to approach the thing with. Children are not born to gratify their parents, they have their own lives to lead and if parents think they own them they can become stifling control freaks. In Australia, the case arose where a lesbian couple who had an IVF impregnation had twins instead of the intended single child - and sued the doctor who performed the procedure! They claimed that having twins when they only wanted a single child had caused such hardship that one of the 'mothers' had lost her capacity to love! This in a world where too many people can't have children at all! In other words, it was about them, not the children. Parents should not think it IS all about them, I say. And I've got reservations about two people of the same gender acting as a parenting couple, too bad if I'm not politically correct because what I think I can't help thinking. By the way, it's interesting to hear that a child reacts differently to the touch of different gender parents. That shows that one cannot be interchangeable with the other, no matter what the social engineers try to do. Humans overdo their attempts to reinvent the world and change the way nature operates.
Well said, Andrew, and absolutely right! I was in my mid-thirties when I got married and we had our daughter when I was forty (not for lack of trying earlier). Even as we made the attempts right away, I was already thinking in terms of the what being an older parent might entail for the sake of my child. I felt that I had a responsibility to be more concerned about my health than I think I ordinarily would have if I had been married at a much earlier age. I was also thinking in terms of adjusting my life in other ways in order to be what I thought (and still think) a father should be. My wife's two daughters were already on the scene and though they were not mine, I had made similar adjustments when marriage to their mother seemed confirmed.
I'm reminded a scene from "Look Who's Coming To Dinner" starring Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy and Sidney Poitier. There's a scene where Sid's character and his father discussing Sid's impending marriage to the white chick. The father, who's not keen on the idea, regales for Sidney all he had done for the sake of Sidney throughout his life and that because of all that sacrifice, Sidney owes Dad some consideration. Sidney says "NO! You brought me into this world, so you owed all that sacrifice to ME! It was YOUR responsibility to provide."
That's the basic issue here, but from a more pre-emptive point of view. When we're commnanded to honor or parents, I think it's so that we don't take advantage of that responsibility the parents have when conceiving a child. Unfortunately, the pecking order is more of a servant status in both directions. The parent might be in charge, but not as a king or despot of the family, but as the one with the most responsibility.
As regards the issue at hand, what service does a parent perform by purposely depriving the child of the other parent? It's incumbent upon anyone desiring a child to take into account what's best for the child. What's best for a child is a mother and a father, not two fathers instead, or two mothers instead, or one of either but not both instead. We OWE that to the children we hope to have.
MA,
I'm glad that you are consistent.
I think the problem arises when you try to come up with some prohibition. If we wish to deter selfishly motivated procreation, then everyone's motives need to be examined.
Vinny,
Ideally, I believe the prohibition should be self-imposed.
Second best is public humiliation. We do this now with smoking and some other behaviors. Ironically, it is being done against those who oppose sinful and self-destructive lifestyles like homosexuality.
Both of these fail because they are contingent upon widespread understanding of right and wrong as opposed to wrong understandings of "rights". For far too many, "rights" are contingent specifically upon satisfying personal desire.
Things have strayed too far at this point that a situation such as that presented in the linked article involves more than one wrongheaded notion upon another which complicates things. Several issues need to be addressed, any one of which could prevent this travesty. It begins with the notion that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behiavor. To the extent that two consenting adults can abuse each other to their deviant hearts' content, I no longer care. They harm only themselves and the hearts of those who love them and oppose their behavior.
Then, there's the notion that this abnormal behavior should be treated as no different than normal behavior. This is goofy on the face of it. Treating what's different as if they're the same? Only from the left.
Then, there's the notion that we should treat their unions as if they are equal to actual marriages. See the previous for goofiness, but in this, we've already covered the stark differences which lead to the next,
which deals with children.
At this point, society has not come close to resolving the first point. They've only allowed activism to dictate how the point should be viewed, treated and/or tolerated. This is another situation where the left ignores science in order to placate their desires.
On top of this is the issue of artificial insemination. This suggests that people have the "right" to conceive and have children. There is no such right as I've stated before. It is certainly not a right that justifies creating life that will later be discarded, stored or sold/given for destructive and fruitless research.
And that touches on the issue of when life begins, another area where the left ignores science to justify their self-centered agendas.
One might think that this limited list exposes a despotic denial of individual liberties on my part. It does not. It is the expression of the truth that we are given freedoms but not without the responsibility to exercise it responsibly and maturely and with some concept of right and wrong, which itself is the acknowledgment that right/wrong exists before us and is knowable, rather than something we decide based on the direction of the prevailing winds.
Mark wrote: "Without artificially altering the genetic makeup of the female fruit fly, it would have never attempted the seduction of another female. That proves homosexuality does not exist in nature."
Wow. Science isn't your strong suit is it... (hint - that doesn't "prove" anything of the sort.)
There are many instances of homosexual behavior among the animal kingdom - penguins, chimps, dolphins, etc... none involve humans genetically altering anything.
That actually "proves" that homosexuality isn't unique to humans.
Joe,
Please. Don't embarrass yourself. The fact that some animals might hook up with another of the same sex isn't really an indication of same-sex attraction, but that the animal might be attracted to a specific animal of the same sex that it might think is the other sex. Is there really proof that they are "attracted" as in, "Hubba, hubba! That dude is HOT!"? Are animals capable of judgement to the extent that they actually think in terms of choosing one sex over the other? IF they seem to be attracted to another of the same sex, is it some flaw in their instinct, a particular animal's scent that is confused by the other as being of the opposite gender or a distinct choice on the part of the animal that it is wants nothing to do with mating with the opposite sex? I don't think they have the capacity for such decision making as regards sex and only act on instinct.
The fact that there may be examples of same sex attractions in the animal kingdom only shows that the disorder is present in other species as well as in humans. To use that as some "proof" that it is normal is nonsensical and illogical thinking. That's like saying that because animals exhibit aggression that agressive behavior in humans should be tolerated as well.
Some people ARE more agressive than others you know. And some studies trying to legitimize homo behavior show that the biological reasons explaining homo behavior are the result of the opposite condition that results in agressive behavior. If we must accept one behavior because "they can't help it", then we must accept the other.
But more to the point, whether or not it shows up in the animal world, two things must be kept in mind:
1. It is still an abnormality, a deviation from what the being is designed to be doing, and
2. Humans are supposed to be the higher functioning species capable of rational thought and the ability to choose how to act over simply acting on instinct. Unless you're saying we should lower ourselves to acting like animals, bringing up the animal kingdom is pointless at best and dishonest at worst.
That being said, I will say that I don't agree with Mark's conclusion, either. But I would say the fruit fly experiment demonstrates that if one can be made to change attractions in that manner, we can change the abnormal in order that they might be attracted to the opposite sex. But, for all the whining about "if I could choose, do you think I'd choose to suffer the hassels of being homo in a straight world?", they whine about the idea of science affecting such a change. Not long ago, researchers in Scotland (I believe it was) were experimenting with doing as much with sheep. I might have this wrong, but I believe they were trying to determine before birth if a sheep was likely to "be gay" and affect changes. The other possibility was that they were trying to determine homosexuality before birth in order to abort. I would oppose the latter for humans of course, but the former deserves serious study.
Joe Agnost left the following comment, but it didn't post for some reason. I've copied it from my email inbox to paste it for all to see.
-----------------------------------
Wow MA - you can't decide which direction to go eh?
First you try and discredit the idea of gay animals: "The fact that some animals might hook up with another of the same sex isn't really an indication of same-sex attraction, but that the animal might be attracted to a specific animal of the same sex that it might think is the other sex."
Then you seem to accept the idea: "The fact that there may be examples of same sex attractions in the animal kingdom only shows that the disorder is present in other species as well as in humans."
But that's my point. You can call it a "disorder" if you choose to, but you can't deny that it's a issue that is NOT unique to humans.
Marshall cont's: "To use that as some 'proof' that it is normal is nonsensical and illogical thinking."
I didn't do anything of the kind. I simply stated that it wasn't "unique" to humans. Something you seem to agree with. That is what was proven by the examples I gave (penguins, dolphins, chimps...).
Marshall cont's: "1. It is still an abnormality, a deviation from what the being is designed to be doing"
I agree that it's "abnormal" and a "deviation" from the norm. I disagree that "design" has anything to do with it, you know, because we aren't "designed" and all.
Marshall cont's: "2. Humans are supposed to be the higher functioning species capable of rational thought and the ability to choose how to act over simply acting on instinct."
Really? You don't think any other animals (you know humans are animals right?) are capable of rational thought?
"Unless you're saying we should lower ourselves to acting like animals"
I don't think "lower" is the right term. I don't think animals are "lower" than us in everything - our brain power might be superior (certainly to ~most~ animals), but that might be it.
And finally: "bringing up the animal kingdom is pointless at best and dishonest at worst."
Whatever... just because we're a member of the "animal kingdom" right?
Regarding the study of a homosexual gene - I think that's interesting and valid work. I think the main problem gay people have with being gay is the attitude of others... which is why they say things like 'I wouldn't choose to be gay becuase it's hard to be gay in this world'.
The problem is that they ~are~ gay, and it's not easy! Your suggestion (to help their difficult life) is to make them hetro - while mine is to change the way society views them. Both solutions would help them get through life more easily - but your solution involves changing ~who~ they are.
I don't see anything wrong with being gay. It's like left-handedness, it's not "normal" and ~is~ "deviant" (in that it deviates from the norm) but it's who they are!
Now for my response:
Joe,
My first comment is the key comment. But the second doesn't contradict it. Let me clarify:
For the first one, I would have thought the "Hubba, hubba..." bit would have helped to get across my meaning, which is that it isn't an attraction in the same sense as attractions between humans. Animals don't think that way. Think of it this way: Do you think a Labrador Retriever would be hot for Goldens because they're like blondes to dogs? Or maybe they're into the big butts of English Sheepdogs. What do you think? Are animals making mating choices based on such things? I don't think they even choose mates based on the sex of the other animal but are compelled by scents which stimulate their doggie libidos.
The second point was to indicate the only way there is a connection with humans which is that there is some disorder causing them to attempt to mate with other animals of the same sex. I use the term "attraction" because that's what we're talking about, not because I agree that the animals are homos.
Thus, what's going on in homos is indeed unique because we function differently than animals, particularly since we have the power within us to change.
I concede you didn't offer it as proof of normal behavior. I was speaking preemptively since such is often followed by that kind of statement.
"Really? You don't think any other animals (you know humans are animals right?) are capable of rational thought?"
No. I don't. I know there are studies looking to determine the question, but I don't think they are definitive in any way. Much depends on the researchers' definition of rational thought.
"I don't think "lower" is the right term. I don't think animals are "lower" than us in everything - our brain power might be superior (certainly to ~most~ animals), but that might be it."
Animals are aways lower than us. They do not have rights. They do not have the same value as humans. The worst cretin in the world is trapped in a burning building along with the cutest little puppy you've ever seen. You can only save one. The puppy dies every time. We're that much above animals.
"Whatever... just because we're a member of the "animal kingdom" right?"
I won't speak for you, but though many humans act like animals, none of them are. We are not a part of the animal kingdom. That's liberal bullshit.
"I think the main problem gay people have with being gay is the attitude of others..."
More lib claptrap. The main problem homos have is that they're homos. But it can be dealt with as evidenced by all those who have left the lifestyle. Like adulterers, for example, the problem with homos is their unwillingness to curb their behavior. Womanizers never get over their desire to whore about. But they can control it and act according to a higher standard. Homos have come to believe they don't have to. And now they insist we agree with them. I don't.
"The problem is that they ~are~ gay, and it's not easy!"
And some are womanizers and some are lazy and some are violent and some are greedy and some are conceited and some are gluttons and on and on and on and it ain't easy for any of 'em. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Why not try to change the way society views all of 'em? They will all testify that it's just the way they are and if they could change, why, by golly, why would they choose to be as they are? It's not the weight of the cross, it's the strength of the spirit. But a weak spirit doesn't legitimize the refusal to carry that cross. We can understand and sympathize with their plight, but allowing them to wallow in their deviancy is not the answer.
"I don't see anything wrong with being gay. It's like left-handedness,"
Left-handedness is NOT a behavior.
"Left-handedness is NOT a behavior."
Of course it is. Anyone can train themselves to change this abnormal behavior.
Perhaps the most difficult argument to deal with is "if I could choose, do you think I'd choose to suffer the hassles of being homo in a straight world?"
It would seem to make sense. Why would anyone invite suffering into their lives when it's so easy to avoid? Who wants to suffer?
I've answered that argument before: Google the term, "Munchhausen Syndrome".
Thanks for posting that for me MA - I don't know why it screwed up like that...
MA wrote: "The main problem homos have is that they're homos. But it can be dealt with as evidenced by all those who have left the lifestyle."
Now it's my turn - ~that~ is religious homophobic BS! Just look at the number of rabid anti-gay pastors out there that end up caught in another man's pants. You'd think they (of all people) would make the choice to change wouldn't you? They can't ~change~, they can just remain in the closet.
MA cont's: "Like adulterers, for example, the problem with homos is their unwillingness to curb their behavior."
Except that adulterers ~hurt~ other people with their actions. I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people. Why should a gay man "curb their behavior"? Who are they hurting?
MA cont's: "Womanizers never get over their desire to whore about. But they can control it and act according to a higher standard. Homos have come to believe they don't have to."
These "womanizers" are still womanizers - they just adjust their behavior so they don't hurt other people (though it's debatable that womanizing hurts anyone). So you're saying that a gay man can't control the ~being~ gay part, but he ~should~ adjust accordingly and remain celebate for their entire lives. Is that right?
And: "And now they insist we agree with them. I don't."
No - they insist on receiving the same rights as you and me. You don't have to agree, you just can't discriminate.
The bottom (pun intended ;) line for me is that I just can't see ANY harm coming from being gay. I see nothing wrong with gay people and thus don't have a problem with it.
Until you can show that being gay actually hurts another person you just won't convince me that we should withold anything from them - and that includes adopting children.
"Thanks for posting that for me MA - I don't know why it screwed up like that..."
No problem, Joe. I don't intentionally try to dodge anyone, except for maybe feodor who just bores the hell out of me.
"...that~ is religious homophobic BS! Just look at the number of rabid anti-gay pastors out there that end up caught in another man's pants. You'd think they (of all people) would make the choice to change wouldn't you?"
First of all, the charge of homophobia is wasted here. It's a term that denotes a projected attitude by the user, not a true reflection of the people the user opposes.
Regarding the number of rabid anti-gay pastors found to be homosexual themselves, I would first say that I have no idea how to number the amount of those to which one could legitimately apply the term "rabid". Are they rabid for merely correctly referring to homo behavior as sinful? Don't think so. I'd say the preacher that comes closest to being "rabid" on the subject is the goofy Fred Phelps, who is in need of counseling and a retraining in Scriptural teaching. As to those who righteously preach against this sinful behavior whilst being homo themselves, I'd say it's likely around 2% of the total number of clergy, perhaps a bit higher if you factor in Roman Catholic priests and monks, of whom the suspicion exists that some are homos going in, hoping to be awash in the faith, but finding others of their ilk with which to engage in the sin. Others prey upon boys of varying ages.
But the fact that they are in daily contact with reminders of the God in which they claim to believe has little to do with their personal level of self-control. Vows, as we see in other aspects of life, do not prevent the taker of the vow from acting against that vow. People of the cloth are just as susceptible to the temptations of their own fallen nature. Even to be saved does not mean one will never sin.
"Except that adulterers ~hurt~ other people with their actions. I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people."
That's either because you aren't looking or ignoring what is available. For example, the links I posted you didn't review or you're ignoring what they've presented. Among them is a couple that speaks to a variety of problems more common in or unique to the homo community, many of which have nothing to do with how normal people react or view them. They would exist in their perfect world where everyone thinks their sinful and physically destructive behavior is just peachy. And those don't even get into the potential harm done if all opposition was totally eliminated, that is, what such a position would do to society in general. We get a taste of that potential by taking stock of the changes in countries that have had homo marriages for awhile. It doesn't bode well.
Keep in mind that "harm" can manifest in a variety of ways. Take a punch in the face, for example. It obviously harms the face that was punched, as well as to negatively impact the psyche of the owner of that face. Anyone who sees the face getting punch is similarly affected psychologically. The area where such face punching is common suffers by reputation and can affect who visits, who moves in or who moves out. The harm done by routine face punching enhances these negative effects and has a lasting effects as well.
In the same way, appeasing those who engage in bad behavior can have such a ripple effect throughout the culture, many of which are never considered by proponents and enablers. If there's anything to which the term "phobia" might be legitimately attached, it would be from the legitimate concern by people who DO look beyond the poor put-upon homos that are expected to, like the rest of us, rise above their base instincts.
more---
"So you're saying that a gay man can't control the ~being~ gay part, but he ~should~ adjust accordingly and remain celebate for their entire lives. Is that right?"
Well if it comes to that, sure. But that's no different than any single hetero person. They, too, should remain celebate their whole lives if they cannot find a suitable mate. That's the ideal to which we all should aspire, particularly since there is no fool proof method for preventing pregnancies beyond tubal litigation or vascectomies, except for celebacy. Our culture has unfortunately given in to the notion that sex between two consenting adults is morally neutral, harmless, and somehow mature behavior. It isn't any of the above no matter how much fun it is.
But the issue isn't simply about homos having sex or not. It's about adults controlling their desires. There are all sorts of behaviors that the culture insists should be controlled, and help with laws and punishments in some cases, but not all those are overtly harmful. For example, there are a lot of assholes in the world and a lot of them never cause any serious harm of any kind. Yet, we'd all prefer they didn't act like assholes. With the homo, we're expected to treat this behavior differently because some of the 2% of the population who are homos insist there is no reason to expect them to police themselves.
"Until you can show that being gay actually hurts another person you just won't convince me that we should withold anything from them - and that includes adopting children."
I did show you but you didn't look, as I said earlier. The mission now is to go back and begin with the links I've presented and start looking at the situation with an objective eye. If you can do that and remain unchanged, then you're not being reasonable at all. I am reasonable. Most like me are. We don't intend to deprive anyone of indulging their personal fetishes in the privacy of their own homes with consenting adults. We simply don't think there's any rational, legitimate, science-based reason to comply with their demands to change the culture to accomdate those fetishes. They've got nothing but, "Because we want it, damnit!" That's not good enough in any society, nor should it be.
I like this comment:
"I see nothing about being gay that hurts other people. Why should a gay man "curb their behavior"? Who are they hurting?"
Uhhhh, didja ever hear of AIDS?
Not only does AIDS hurt themnselves, it crosses over to so-called bi-sexuals, and then to heterosexuals, and now the epidemic of AIDS is killing people by the millions worldwide. Maybe your too young to remember, but gays were the first to be infected with AIDS. It was exclusively a gay disease until they started infecting heterosexuals, too, some intentionally.
And you don't see how being gay hurts anyone.
What a hoot!
MA wrote: "We get a taste of that potential by taking stock of the changes in countries that have had homo marriages for awhile. It doesn't bode well."
Excuse me?? I live in Canada and we've had gay marriage for a number of years - let me tell you, it's a non issue. It really is. There are ZERO problems this has led to.
MA cont'd: "...appeasing those who engage in bad behavior can..."
You still haven't shown that homosexuality ~is~ "bad behavior". I don't see it...
MA concluded: "The mission now is to go back and begin with the links I've presented and start looking at the situation with an objective eye."
I did that. It was less than convincing... but I'll take another look.
@Mark: is there anything you actually know the truth about? AIDS did not start with the gay population. It's widely agreed upon that patient zero (the first human infected) was a bushman in Africa that was infected by coming into contact with infected chimps. It's then passed among the human population in any number of ways (hetro sex, blood transfusions, sharing needles, etc.).
It's not usually worthwhile to reply to Mark (he's SO ignorant and predjudiced) but in this case the misinformation might convince someone.
What a hoot eh Mark?! Indeed.
"It's about adults controlling their desires."
And this is what this blog is all about. For Marshal, it's all about people controlling their desires. Marshall is a hold over from 17th century Massachusetts, a Puritan. Sex is for procreation only. Sex is for married man and wife only. Sex is not what YOU want it to be. Sex is what Marshall wants it to be.
To understand this is to understand everything about Marshall and this blog.
Of course all sorts of illness is passed between people of both sexes. That alone only shows why immature sex is bad behavior. Such includes homosex practices, but also fornication and adultery. I haven't time right now to go into any details, but I did want to comment on Mark's remark. I hate to oppose him on the general position, but we don't need to deal in such things that aren't really unique to homos.
They aren't unique to homos now, Art. But the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact. In fact, the first AIDS joke I ever heard went like this:
Q: What's the hardest thing about having AIDS?
A: Trying to convince your mother you're a Haitian.
Mark,
My point was that illnesses of all sorts are transmitted between people of all sexes, with some being STDs transmitted through intercourse in the normal way. Syphillis, gonorhea(sp), herpes, just to name a few, have been transmitted between the sexes for eons, as you know. So the point was that the transmission of disease isn't unique to homos and not a worthy point to use against them since the same sort of things happen between men and women. Call it a wash.
I would point to their sexual practices, but the they and their enablers like to point out that many of their sexual practices are engaged in by heteros as well. But while this is true, straight intercourse is not harmful between men and women provided no other factors, such as disease or poor hygiene complicate the situation. The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used. This opens up the partners to disease just by the damage they do to each other and the illness and short lives common among the homo community have unnecessarily orphaned adopted children.
Mark wrote: "the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact."
Hmmm. "fact" you say... let's see your evidence for this "fact" - because it's common knowledge to anyone who actually looks into it that this is false.
Patient zero - the first human infected - caught it from chimps. It happened in Africa and was a bushman likely eating chimps. It then spread among humans in any number of ways (the least likely being that these bushman engaged in gay sex.)
The fact is that patient zero did not get the disease from being "exclusively gay" as Mark likes to believe.
MA wrote: "The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
"meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for? I will agree that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex or oral sex - but I can't agree with the 'not what they're meant for' statement.
The evidence for my earlier claims (I had to look them up):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_AIDS_misconceptions
-- Look at the part titled "History of HIV/AIDS"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
It's a consensus that it started by African bushmen eating infected chimps.
"This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."
"meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for?"
Joe. C'mon. Meant by whom? How about nature, biology or God who created all things? This is an angle that makes me shake my head with sadness when attempts to present it occur. What a member is meant for and what the person to whom the member is attached chooses to use it for are two very different and distinct things. I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design. The anus is not meant for penetration or it would be equipped with a means of lubrication as is the vagina. The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it. To use a body part for a task not related to its design is to put it at risk. Purposely exposing one's self (not to mention one's partner) to risk makes the act in question wrong. It's not as if there is a trade off such as the risk one might put one's self through by running through flames so as to escape a burning room. It's done for selfish pleasure with the hope that harm is not inflicted. That also makes it wrong. The homo lobby seeks to change our culture and laws in a manner that legitimizes bad behavior, which is bad because of the harm done.
MA wrote: "I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design."
That's exactly it. You talk about "purpose of its design" - but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution - which doesn't involve "design" at all.
MA cont'd: "The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it."
Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs... it's had to be over the millenia since it's used for eating, drinking, breathing, kissing, etc.
MA cont'd: "It's done for selfish pleasure..."
I think this is the crux of the problem... pleasure is always "selfish" by definition. Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!
This is truly the only life we get - I don't believe in ANY afterlife - and thus it's all about pleasure NOW/today! It DISpleases me to harm another so I avoid that. I see nothing (necessarily) wrong with "selfish pleasure", in fact - I think it's to be actively sought!
If life isn't fun, if it's all about adjusting pleasurable behavior because god wouldn't like it, I don't see what the point is. If you're not having fun then what have you got??
Joe, you poor ignorant soul. You need prayer.
First of all, you are reading revisionist history off a web site that is well known to be Liberally biased. Wikipedia's articles are contributed by it's readers. It is far from an infallible source. Often times it is accurate but oftentimes it's not. If you want reliable facts, you want to go to some official history website, not a website where the articles come from contributors who may have an agenda.
Your story of how AIDS began is wrong. I am old enough to remember when the presence of AIDS and it's inception was first reported by the news agencies, which, BTW, were considerably less biased than they are nowadays.
The first reported occurrence of AIDS was determined to have been caused by at least one man having sex with green monkeys. Apparently, the man was a homosexual who was having some difficulty finding a male partner so he decided it might be fun to hook up with an animal. In the ensuing few years, AIDS was passed exclusively from one homosexual to the next, except for some curious cases that showed up in Haitians. Interestingly enough, Green Monkeys are indigenous to Haiti and Africa. It was only after homosexuals increased their sexual activity among members of the opposite sex that the virus crossed gender lines. Then, not surprisingly, people who were given blood transfusions were inadvertently affected by the AIDS virus before doctors discovered the connection.
And that is how it started and that is how it became more than just a homosexual's disease.
Wow Mark... you're just all kinds of crazy aren't ya!
Don't like wiki? Fine:
http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12966623/
Here's a UC San Francisco site that debunks your 'humans had sex with monkeys' ridiculousness:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-05-12-02-02
Another one:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/namonkey.htm
You better pray harder Mark - I'm still not buying your crap!
Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business. I think I safely eliminated all need of further talk of the origins of AIDS by conceding that the transmission of STDs is not the sole province of bad behavior of the homo variety. Thus, it makes all sex outside of marriage bad behavior. So, no more talk of sex with monkeys. Move on back to the topic.
"You talk about "purpose of its design" - but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution - which doesn't involve "design" at all."
Joe, please. This statement in intellectually dishonest. Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part. If you want to go with evolution as a crap shoot, there still is intent in the function of body parts. What a part is used for is subjective choice, but to say a given body part has no distinct purpose, even as a result of a species evolving is ludicrous. Such statements don't give you a whole lot of room to denigrate Mark's comments.
"Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs..."
To an extent, but there are a lot of tobacco chewers that wish it was a hell of a lot better. There are a lot of dead whores and homos who would say as much as well. I didn't say the mouth had NO defenses, I said if it wasn't designed for more than eating or drinking, it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it." You even copied my words and got it wrong.
"I think this is the crux of the problem... pleasure is always "selfish" by definition."
Not the point, thus, not the crux. Worse, it's an example of taking words out of context. You create a meaning the whole sentence doesn't convey, particularly without the other sentences that surround it. Try not to do that (except for humor, when it's OK---as long as it's really funny)
"Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!"
Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind. What makes this pleasure selfish is the fact that the sex is done with full knowledge of what is at stake, what the consequences might by and then that knowledge is dismissed and ignored without the consequences being mitigated. The participants don't give a rat's ass about the consequences but only the pleasure they hope to have. If I'm availing myself of the pleasure of watching the Chicago Cubs play like crap, it is not selfish. If I'm doing so while my wife is doing all the chores, that's selfish of me. Doing something for one's self and enjoying it isn't selfish. It's doing it when more important things are at stake or doing things at the expense of others.
Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic. It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun. I have lots of fun. I know people with stronger faith than I, living a more devoutly faithful life, and having a hell of a good time. Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong. You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God. How sad.
MA wrote: "Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business."
(in a whiny kid's voice) But he started it!! ;)
Ok - I won't continue with Mark.
MA wrote: "Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part."
Fair enough... I concede this point. There are some obvious functions that certain body parts have (the heart pumps blood for instance).
I don't think this can be applied to every body part (what is the purpose of toe nails?) but it clearly works for some.
I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though. Head hair's normal function/purpose (for example) is to keep the head warm. I don't think it's "bad" to shave your head though. The normal function/purpose of ears to absorb sound but I don't think it's bad to use them for decoration with earrings.
I don't see anything wrong with using a body part for something other than what it evolved to do.
MA wrote: "Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind."
I already said that I was guessing here (assuming) - I know you haven't said this and didn't mean to imply that you had.
MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."
No doubt. It struck a nerve.
MA cont'd: "It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun."
I certianly didn't mean to imply that believing in god means "no fun". No way - you're proof that this isn't the case (I'm assuming - again - that you do have fun.)
I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time. If the fun doesn't hurt anybody - and just offends god - then I'm all for having that fun!!
MA cont'd: "Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong."
You're right - I didn't mean to. I think I cleared that up with my previous paragraph.
"You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God."
Um... no. I seek pleasure because pleasure is FUN! Why does god have to factor into everything??
Joe,
"I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though."
But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well. By that I mean when heteros engage in the same activities for which homos are known. But even something as simple as kissing is bad in the sense that germ transmission takes place. Kissing isn't as likely to cause severe harm in otherwise healthy people, but the point is that the act isn't an intended function of the mouth and when used outside its function, risk of harm is hightened. With other acts perpetrated by homos upon each other, the risk is significantly higher and becomes more guaranteed when practiced with greater frequency.
"MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."
No doubt. It struck a nerve."
Not really an appropriate phrase here. Not so much "struck a nerve" as "touched a chord" as in feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth, whether intentional or the result of never really seeking the truth. Take some time to visit WinteryKnight, 4Simpsons (Eternity Matters), or Winging It, all of whom have wonderful apologetics links that can help you better understand why believing God doesn't exist is foolishness.
(Note to all: some other blogs on my blogroll may also have some good links and those under "Left Ones" may have some links of their own. But those I've listed I've looked at myself and they are all great sources. Can't say as much for the "Left Ones".)
"I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time."
It's hardly a "waste of time" to live life in a manner pleasing to God. He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer. The arguments supporting the truth of God's existence are all based on tangible evidence as well as logic and reason. (Faith is not blind, but reason based.) Those who dismiss these arguments do so with less logic and reason and very little evidence for their counter arguments.
"Why does god have to factor into everything??"
Because in the end, it's all about God. The big mistake is to think it is all about ourselves.
MA wrote: "But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well."
No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences... not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do".
Breathing might lead you to lung cancer... should we stop breathing?
I think ~everyone~ should practice the safest sex they can... but abstinence taking it too far. The benifits ( of sex) outweight the possible harm.
MA cont'd: "But even something as simple as kissing is bad..."
Exactly! But I bet you kiss people... it's well worth the 'risk' right?!
MA wrote: "...feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth..."
LOL! Don't feel too bad... I'm doing fine. ;)
MA cont'd: "Take some time to visit..."
That's OK - I'm good. Thanks for the offer though.
(incidentally I'm commenting back and forth with 4simpsons right now on his site)
MA wrote: "He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer."
I guess if I believed that I might take your stance too... I suppose if you ~really~ do believe that then you've got to act accordingly - that makes sense.
It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!
"(incidentally I'm commenting back and forth with 4simpsons right now on his site)"
Joe, can you help with navigation? What is the title of the post?
Here's the link:
http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/how-does-god-demonstrate-his-love-for-us/
Joe,
"No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences... not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do"."
This just isn't the case at all. The info I presented shows that they will have bad consequences. It's more a matter of if they can negotiate those bad consequences to live a full life. If doing so means a minimum number of years, they lose there as well on average and that is because of their lifestyle. Conversely, married heteros do not suffer from the engagement of sexual practices that are natural and biologically compatible with their physiology. Indeed, married hetero couples have typically the longest lifespan when compared with homos or even single heteros.
"Breathing might lead you to lung cancer... should we stop breathing?"
You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process. So if you're talking about purposely breathing what the lungs are designed to process, that would be a stupid comparison.
A better one would be smoking or intentionally inhabiting an environment because the air is foul and poisonous. Breathing clean air is comparable to having sex with one's spouse, because that is what is intended. Breathing foul air, as with smoking, is comparable to two men having sexual relations, because both conflict with the natural function of the body parts involved and lead to damage and premature death.
"But I bet you kiss people... it's well worth the 'risk' right?!"
Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave. I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth. Are you starting to see how this analogy and comparison thing works? You're doing pretty much the same thing that Vinny was doing. Ya gotta keep it apples to apples.
"That's OK - I'm good. Thanks for the offer though."
But if you're going to try to diminish the argument of another because of God, or your insistence that there isn't one, you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position. Simply not believing based on next to nothing doesn't serve you, even if you perceive your situation as being "good". It's very much like engaging in bad sexual behavior because it appeals to you, all the while it is damaging your body and shortening your life. It's always better to know the facts.
"It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!"
Like what? Sex? I haven't given it up by a longshot. But at the same time, as great as sex is, it isn't all that great. I've used this line before and it confuses people. I hope you get the meaning because it really is about as accurate as anything can be.
Aside from that, I can't think of too many "great" things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here.
MA wrote: "You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process."
I think you meant 'what the lungs evolved to process'. ;)
There are many many toxins in the 'fresh air' that people enjoy, we only process the oxygen - but only about %20 or so of our air is oxygen - so most of what we breath is not what the lungs are able to process. We're risking life every time we breath (not that we have another choice). My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!
"Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave."
So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then. The kinds of sickness you can get from kissing isn't enough to deter you, but the potential sickness you can get from promiscuous sex ~is~. Fair enough - you're willing to risk, but you're conservative with the risks you take.
But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves... I don't agree with that.
Except that you then wrote: "I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth."
You mean you wouldn't stop kissing her altogether?!? But you want to stop gay people from doing what they do. It doesn't add up.
MA wrote: "you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position."
I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks... do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense?
That's how I am with religion. I see no need for it the way I see no need for fairies in my garden being responsible for my beatiful tomatoes. I'm not going to read up about the arguments for fairies in my garden anymore than I'm going to read up on all of the millions of different flavours of god(s) out there.
MA asked: "I can't think of too many 'great' things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here."
I'm sure it's different for each individual, and I don't know you well enough to know ~what~ you deprive yourself of.
But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin. This, while not a big deal AT ALL, is something you miss out on. It's fun, and something my wife understands as she does it with men. So what? It's a little harmless fantasy...
You might not be one of them - but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs.
Like I said - I know you have fun, I know you love life. I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad.
Joe,
"My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!"
The same can be said of life in general without being mere hyperbole. But the point is that the extent to what the body can tolerate is known yet to the best of our abilities we take pains to avoid that which is harmful. That is, if one is normal and rational. And if one is, one does not overexpose themselves to poor air quality if one can help it. In the same manner, normal and rational people, and those can include those with abnormal and irrational desires--pretty much everyone to one extent or another, avoid behaviors that are harmful. Practicing homos and sluts of both sexes are not in that number.
"So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then."
To some degree, yes, particularly in light of the above statements regarding life being risky. If your wife has an outbreak of open herpes sores on and/or in her mouth, would you not withhold your oral expressions of your affections for at least the duration of the episode, or swap spit nonetheless? (of course you realize I'm not suggesting she has any communicable diseases whatsoever)
"But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves..."
Aside from the fact that hundreds of laws and regulations do this already, I haven't made that suggestion myself in this post with the exception of the introduction of innocent children who are given no choice in the matter.
I will say that I object to state sanctioning of harmful and immoral behaviors through licensing or certifications. As a society, our laws and regs, licensings and certifications should revolve around encouraging the best possible behavior and discouraging bad behavior. I believe that used to be the rule of thumb. That would satisfy your next statement about denying homos their desire to be perverted with each other. There's no way to prevent people from being stupid or even from being malicious, but our laws should reflect society's desire to discourage it. There are many things people do that are stupid that are not illegal.
"I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks... do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense?"
Your statements suggest quite a substantial lack of pertinent information to justify your position. I dismiss things like flat earth or astrology because they're baseless and have nothing to counter what I do believe. I know that from investigating them. That not all alternate possibilities require much time to refute is not my fault. The flat earth thing is particularly quick to refute.
Christianity is a bit more complex and supported by facts and evidence from more than a few fields of study. But I wonder how much of the basics is foreign to you. For example, you refer to the Bible (at Neil's) as "some book". I would hope you realize that the Bible is a collection of books. The Gospels, for example, are four separate authors giving an account of a particular person in history. Other historians of the time, but not of the faith, speak of the same person to one degree or another. Archeology has corroborated much of the Bible's stories, but never proven any of it false. There's plenty to satisfy reason if one takes the time to actually study it. It's nothing like fairies in your garden. Indeed, there is more evidence that supports the truth of the Bible, of Jesus and what and who He said He was, then for any other ancient figure that you take for granted. Tons more.
"But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin."
There's a difference between appreciating a woman's beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her. The former doesn't equate to lust, which is the latter.
But this is another indication of your lack of knowledge, a lack of knowledge that provoked my comment about how well you know your own position. You make comments like this one about the faith (and others that I've read over at Neil's blog) that are no better than superficial perceptions. You ask why is lust bad, but it really only takes a little thought to come up with a good reason of your own, one that is likely on point, provided you're being intellectually honest in your pursuit of the truth.
But such questions and statements lend validity to the Biblical assertion that the things of God are foolish to the non-believer. And really, if there is no God then that would still not be totally true. But I don't know that I've ever seen a teaching of God, meant for spiritual things, that didn't have an equally practical value for the physical as well. This is most apparent in the sexual realm as we've seen all sorts of problems that are related to a relaxed attitude about sexuality. I hope I don't need to list them yet again, but I will if need be. Most of it while people with attitudes similar to you speak of "safe sex". Thus, this following statement of yours becomes more foolish:
"...but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs."
What we believe aligns with science. Science supports our policy proposals that align with our beliefs. My links have shown that to be the case with the issue that provoked this post.
"I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad."
Depriving yourself of God's salvation because of anything, particularly something as insignificant and base as lust is far sadder and not a little pathetic. Exposing yourself to risk for a little pleasure is as well. Exposing children to the risks outlined in the links is something far worse.
Post a Comment