According to the Bible, gay is not okay.

[Dark]

Just a bit of a nitpick; when referring to god(s) as a noun, the "g" should not be capitalized. When referring to a specific god that is named "God", it is considered a pronoun and it should be capitalized.

 

This is a bit useless since most gods go by a name other than "God", but since the main topic of these debates is always Christianity, I might as well point that out.

[CrabHelmet]

Oh, I didn't see that MarbleZone had replied, so I may as well respond now:

 

First of all: You think people will be quicker to notice that a child has two parents of the same gender than that a child's parents are black?

 

Second of all: Bigotry still exists regarding everything else I listed; it just no longer has the widespread support of the law. You want to perpetuate homophobic bigotry's support of the law.

 

Third of all: What GraveHorizon said. Seriously.

 

Fourth of all: Is your argument seriously that gay couples shouldn't be permitted to adopt because, uh, other first graders might be meaniefaces if they somehow found out that the adopted child had gay adoptive parents? Seriously? I just need to check here, because I honestly can't believe that anyone would be so stupid as to think that elementary school playground drama might be a valid argument against equal rights.

 

Fifth of all: Parents who work with computers might be unusually likely to raise kids who turn out to be nerds, which would lead to far more widespread and direct playground bullying. Ban couples who work with computers from adopting? Actually, we should go farther: take away the kids of heterosexual parents who work with computers! After all, it's for the children's sake.

 

Sixth of all: Contrary to your claim that having homosexual adoptive parents will cause problems for a child, it has actually been found that children raised by lesbian couples adjust unusually well.

 

Seventh and lastly: Don't give me this nonsense about postponing equal rights for human beings until the bigots go away. That sort of nonsense opposed the Civil Rights movement on the grounds that the South was not yet ready, and that sort of nonsense was shot down by some black preacher guy whose name escapes me who said that justice too long delayed is justice denied.

[CrabHelmet]

Oh, I didn't see that MarbleZone had replied, so I may as well respond now:

 

First of all: You think people will be quicker to notice that a child has two parents of the same gender than that a child's parents are black?

 

Second of all: Bigotry still exists regarding everything else I listed; it just no longer has the widespread support of the law. You want to perpetuate homophobic bigotry's support of the law.

 

Third of all: What GraveHorizon said. Seriously.

 

Fourth of all: Is your argument seriously that gay couples shouldn't be permitted to adopt because, uh, other first graders might be meaniefaces if they somehow found out that the adopted child had gay adoptive parents? Seriously? I just need to check here, because I honestly can't believe that anyone would be so stupid as to think that elementary school playground drama might be a valid argument against equal rights.

 

Fifth of all: Parents who work with computers might be unusually likely to raise kids who turn out to be nerds, which would lead to far more widespread and direct playground bullying. Ban couples who work with computers from adopting? Actually, we should go farther: take away the kids of heterosexual parents who work with computers! After all, it's for the children's sake.

 

Sixth of all: Contrary to your claim that having homosexual adoptive parents will cause problems for a child, it has actually been found that children raised by lesbian couples adjust unusually well.

 

Seventh and lastly: Don't give me this nonsense about postponing equal rights for human beings until the bigots go away. That sort of nonsense opposed the Civil Rights movement on the grounds that the South was not yet ready, and that sort of nonsense was shot down by some black preacher guy whose name escapes me who said that justice too long delayed is justice denied.

[CrabHelmet]

Oh, I didn't see that MarbleZone had replied, so I may as well respond now:

 

First of all: You think people will be quicker to notice that a child has two parents of the same gender than that a child's parents are black?

 

Second of all: Bigotry still exists regarding everything else I listed; it just no longer has the widespread support of the law. You want to perpetuate homophobic bigotry's support of the law.

 

Third of all: What GraveHorizon said. Seriously.

 

Fourth of all: Is your argument seriously that gay couples shouldn't be permitted to adopt because, uh, other first graders might be meaniefaces if they somehow found out that the adopted child had gay adoptive parents? Seriously? I just need to check here, because I honestly can't believe that anyone would be so stupid as to think that elementary school playground drama might be a valid argument against equal rights.

 

Fifth of all: Parents who work with computers might be unusually likely to raise kids who turn out to be nerds, which would lead to far more widespread and direct playground bullying. Ban couples who work with computers from adopting? Actually, we should go farther: take away the kids of heterosexual parents who work with computers! After all, it's for the children's sake.

 

Sixth of all: Contrary to your claim that having homosexual adoptive parents will cause problems for a child, it has actually been found that children raised by lesbian couples adjust unusually well.

 

Seventh and lastly: Don't give me this nonsense about postponing equal rights for human beings until the bigots go away. That sort of nonsense opposed the Civil Rights movement on the grounds that the South was not yet ready, and that sort of nonsense was shot down by some black preacher guy whose name escapes me who said that justice too long delayed is justice denied.

[MarbleZone]

Overall, the three of you make more valid points than me, so I won't argue any further because I'd just be hitting the same button of personal convictions and we're past that. ;)

 

That said, since this is still a Debate, I'll throw some more thoughts to the mix, just because. :P

 

Third of all: What GraveHorizon said. Seriously.

 

GraveHorizon laid a scenario where heterosexual couples somehow don't adopt. But yes' date=' I agree that given those two choices the child will most likely choose to be adopted regardless of the couple.

 

Fourth of all: Is your argument seriously that gay couples shouldn't be permitted to adopt because, uh, other first graders might be meaniefaces if they somehow found out that the adopted child had gay adoptive parents? Seriously? I just need to check here, because I honestly can't believe that anyone would be so stupid as to think that elementary school playground drama might be a valid argument against equal rights.

 

First off, calling people stupid in an argument is not a healthy approach, but that's how you've always done things so I won't insist. My problem with this is that children have their own set of rights, and one of them is the right to be protected from discrimination. Not having any quotations however, and being aware that one other right is the right to a loving family, which I'm sure the adoptive couple will be, I withdraw.

 

Fifth of all: Parents who work with computers might be unusually likely to raise kids who turn out to be nerds' date=' which would lead to far more widespread and direct playground bullying. Ban couples who work with computers from adopting? Actually, we should go farther: take away the kids of heterosexual parents who work with computers! After all, it's for the children's sake.[/quote']

 

So for the sake of ridiculing "computer-working parents = nerd children" but in a previous post "gay parents =/= gay children"? :/

 

Sixth of all: Contrary to your claim that having homosexual adoptive parents will cause problems for a child' date=' it has actually been found that children raised by lesbian couples adjust unusually [i']well[/i].

 

It has been found by studies that support your point of view; that applies to basically anything, I'm pretty sure I can look something up that says the opposite and use it to support my own view. These are, in most cases, behavioural studies that were performed too recently to be valid on a grand scale, which is why I didn't look any up to back up what I was saying - I'm aware that somewhere, someone tried to prove the exact opposite not too long ago because this is still an unresolved topic. ;)

There is the old Freudian developmental theory, which has been proven correct for the most part, that in different stages of development the child has the need of a clear maternal figure (the earlier stages of life and the Oedipus Complex), and a clear paternal figure (the complex's resolution and adopting a behavioural model); for what I know this still holds true for the optimal development of a child, but admittedly I don't know if it has been considered obsolete recently.

 

Seventh and lastly: Don't give me this nonsense about postponing equal rights for human beings until the bigots go away. That sort of nonsense opposed the Civil Rights movement on the grounds that the South was not yet ready' date=' and that sort of nonsense was shot down by some black preacher guy whose name escapes me who said that justice too long delayed is justice denied.

[/quote']

 

Admittedly, being European I was never taught American History, even if it was a fairly recent event, so apart from him "having a dream" involving equality between races, I'm pretty much ignorant. From my perspective, until the fact that gay couples are perfectly natural is more widespread, I think it's too soon to have them adopt, but I could be just as wrong as people were back when MLK proved it.

 

Anyway, like I said, you three make more valid points than I do, and from now on I'll try to look at things from your perspective and make them my own viewpoint. My personal experience with suicide-risk cases because of this very issue may have shaped my opinion on this, but one can always evolve. ;)

On a side note, thanks for making me look up the word "bigot". :P

[Dr. Cakey]

One short comment:

I don't see any real difference between gays and cleptomaniacs (or maniac killers).

What I mean is - both should get treatment and both are responsible for their actions.

(This does NOT imply them being inferior in OTHER aspects.)

Also' date=' the more PUBLIC ATTENTION they get - the worse their case becomes.

(It's similar to little children - histerics are 99% encouraged by ATTENTION.)

And don't forget - according to God, both are sinners.

Which means - they HAVE free choice in the topic.

PERIOD. 8)

[/quote']

 

ITT: Gays = murderers

 

You seem to think in some kind of strange alternate plane than most other people. Find other people who think with the same skewed logic you do. Find your local Christian Identity Movement HQ - I'm sure you'll fit right in.

[The Dark One]

One short comment:

I don't see any real difference between gays and cleptomaniacs (or maniac killers).

What I mean is - both should get treatment and both are responsible for their actions.

(This does NOT imply them being inferior in OTHER aspects.)

Also' date=' the more PUBLIC ATTENTION they get - the worse their case becomes.

(It's similar to little children - histerics are 99% encouraged by ATTENTION.)

And don't forget - according to God, both are sinners.

Which means - they HAVE free choice in the topic.

PERIOD. 8)

[/quote']

 

You are an idiot.

[CrabHelmet]

GraveHorizon laid a scenario where heterosexual couples somehow don't adopt. But yes' date=' I agree that given those two choices the child will most likely choose to be adopted regardless of the couple.

[/quote']

 

No, GraveHorizon laid a scenario where heterosexual couples don't adopt in sufficiently large numbers to cover every child requiring adoption, i.e. the situation in which the world finds itself today.

 

First off' date=' calling people stupid in an argument is not a healthy approach, but that's how you've always done things so I won't insist. My problem with this is that children have their own set of rights, and one of them is the right to be protected from discrimination. Not having any quotations however, and being aware that one other right is the right to a loving family, which I'm sure the adoptive couple will be, I withdraw.

[/quote']

 

You are inflicting your own discrimination upon the prospective adoptive parents for being gay because you are worried that the child might face some playground bullying. Which is the greater discrimination: two people being denied the right to raise a child who has no one else to care for him or her and whom they are perfectly capable of raising; or a kid possibly not being popular in elementary school because of his parentage?

 

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the blades of grass.

 

So for the sake of ridiculing "computer-working parents = nerd children" but in a previous post "gay parents =/= gay children"? :/

 

Sexual orientation results almost entirely from biological factors unrelated to one's upbringing; as the American Psychological Association noted' date=' "[i']However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual[/i]". A child's hobbies and interests, on the other hand, are very heavily influenced by upbringing.

 

It has been found by studies that support your point of view; that applies to basically anything' date=' I'm pretty sure I can look something up that says the opposite and use it to support my own view. These are, in most cases, behavioural studies that were performed too recently to be valid on a grand scale, which is why I didn't look any up to back up what I was saying - I'm aware that somewhere, someone tried to prove the exact opposite not too long ago because this is still an unresolved topic. ;)

[/quote']

 

"Screw evidence, I don't believe in evidence anyhow, and I'm sure the studies conducted by Bob Jones University are just as reliable as the studies conducted by legitimate psychological associations, so there's really no way of knowing."

 

There is the old Freudian developmental theory' date=' which has been proven correct for the most part, that in different stages of development the child has the need of a clear maternal figure (the earlier stages of life and the Oedipus Complex), and a clear paternal figure (the complex's resolution and adopting a behavioural model); for what I know this still holds true for the optimal development of a child, but admittedly I don't know if it has been considered obsolete recently.

[/quote']

 

I know of no such developmental theory, and the majority of Freud's ideas have since been disproven. Source?

[MarbleZone]

You are inflicting your own discrimination upon the prospective adoptive parents for being gay because you are worried that the child might face some playground bullying. Which is the greater discrimination: two people being denied the right to raise a child who has no one else to care for him or her and whom they are perfectly capable of raising; or a kid possibly not being popular in elementary school because of his parentage?

 

You're devaluing the child's situation. I've dealt with children regarding suicide for peer discrimination on this issue' date=' but I've never heard of gay couples committing suicide because they can't adopt. I fully understand how it's unfair from the parents' perspective, but regarding the child's position as mere unpopularity is just not accurate. Like I said before though, I've been convinced that not allowing to adopt weighs more (and suicidal thoughts happen in more situations), so I won't argue any further.

As a side note, did America ratify the Convention for the Rights of the Child yet, or do they have their own version?

 

"Screw evidence, I don't believe in evidence anyhow, and I'm sure the studies conducted by Bob Jones University are just as reliable as the studies conducted by legitimate psychological associations, so there's really no way of knowing."

 

I said no such thing. How widespread to the point of proven is that theory that children of lesbian couples "adapt unusually well"? To the same extent, no study I could come up with would have validity to the discussion. Doesn't mean I don't believe in evidence, it means I don't consider it to be evidence yet, just stand-alone studies on a largely unresolved topic.

 

I know of no such developmental theory' date=' and the majority of Freud's ideas have since been disproven. Source?[/quote']

 

Freud's phallic phase in just about any psychology book. But while we're at it, and since I wasn't aware it had been disproven, I might as well look it up and re-educate myself.

 

Done arguing, like I said I've been convinced to agree with your position on this matter. ;)

[Koshej613]

You can't ban the Truth. :lol:

Nor can you deny it in the End. :lol:

[Yankee]

I personally feel homosexuality is a choice. While I don't really approve of it, I don't think it's my place to call it wrong. I highly doubt we're ever going to truly find out if it's something you're born into or not, so I'll stick with my opinion.

 

One thing that DOES annoy me about some gay people (definitely not all of them), is that some seem to act way for feminine than woman. I find that strange...

[CrabHelmet]

I personally feel homosexuality is a choice. While I don't really approve of it' date=' I don't think it's my place to call it wrong. I highly doubt we're ever going to truly find out if it's something you're born into or not, so I'll stick with my opinion.

[/quote']

 

Indeed, we may never truly discover the truth. Unless, of course, we take such drastic measures as spending five bloody minutes on Wikipedia, or reading earlier posts in this very thread, or removing our fingers from our ears. However, such actions are unnecessary and dangerous. We should instead just sit here spewing ignorant nonsense and pretend we're being wise by not leaping to such drastic conclusions as "the universal scientific consensus might just possibly be more likely to be correct than my conjecture supported only by my baseless belief and contradicted by all evidence wild insane guess".

[Yankee]

Yes, because Wikipedia is known as being the single most reliable source on the internet.

How could I possibly have forgotten that. I'm truly sorry Crabby.

 

There are gay people that do it by choice, so I'm going to assume that not all cases are because they are born into it or something. I'm going to form my opinion on what I see and know, rather than trust a bunch of 16 year olds who have nothing better to do than edit a web page for fun.

 

There is no winning this one, Crabs ^_\\\

I'm going to stand firm on what I have seen and heard myself.

 

<3

[Somebody613]

~Removed,

Lust~

[Yankee]

Your effect didn't work.

[CrabHelmet]

Curses, Resonating Lust figured out that the only evidence for homosexuality not being a choice is a Wikipedia article. He knows that trusted sources like the American Psychological Association have no information whatsoever regarding whether homosexuality is a choice, and that even if they did, ten seconds on Google certainly couldn't produce resul- wait, what's this?

 

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

 

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

 

But I'm sure wallowing in your own ignorance is much more fulfilling than doing the slightest bit of basic research.

 

Now, Resonating Lust, I think you'll find that the forum description calls for "intelligent discussion", and your decision to ignore scientific research in favour of, uh, your secondhand perceptions of anecdotes certainly doesn't qualify as that. Get out of this topic. Somehow, your posts are of unacceptable quality for a forum where seven-year-olds make broken god cards.

[Yankee]

^ Because what I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears cannot have possibly happened, given what those psychologists have said.

I must be hallucinating. Forgive me.

 

Edit: Lol, I'm not going to leave because you can't accept another person's opinion, and cannot accept that another person has had real life experiences.

[CrabHelmet]

^ Because what I have seen with my own eyes' date=' and heard with my own ears cannot have possibly happened, given what those psychologists have said.

I must be hallucinating. Forgive me.

[/quote']

 

I didn't know you were capable of quantum-leaping into people's brains and examining exactly how events transpired.

 

Since you've provided no details about your super-evidence that all those stupid "scientists" with their "studies" and "evidence" and "science" overlooked, it's difficult to provide explanations regarding what you witnessed - though you obviously came here just to state your own absurd stance rather than to have a proper debate, so I'm sure that's of no concern to you. However, there are plenty of explanations for what you would view as people "choosing" to be homosexual; they could be choosing whether to come out, or they could be choosing whether to recognize their own homosexuality or deny it, or they could be bisexual choosing between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But I'm sure none of that makes any difference to you. You've magically uncovered the Real True Truth that the rest of the world overlooked because they're not you.

 

Edit: Lol' date=' I'm not going to leave because you can't accept another person's opinion, and cannot accept that another person has had real life experiences.

[/quote']

 

My opinion is that the theory of gravity is a lie. I base this on my life experience of seeing birds fly. You can't argue with me.

[Yankee]

^ Because what I have seen with my own eyes' date=' and heard with my own ears cannot have possibly happened, given what those psychologists have said.

I must be hallucinating. Forgive me.

[/quote']

 

I didn't know you were capable of quantum-leaping into people's brains and examining exactly how events transpired.

 

Since you've provided no details about your super-evidence that all those stupid "scientists" with their "studies" and "evidence" and "science" overlooked, it's difficult to provide explanations regarding what you witnessed - though you obviously came here just to state your own absurd stance rather than to have a proper debate, so I'm sure that's of no concern to you. However, there are plenty of explanations for what you would view as people "choosing" to be homosexual; they could be choosing whether to come out, or they could be choosing whether to recognize their own homosexuality or deny it, or they could be bisexual choosing between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But I'm sure none of that makes any difference to you. You've magically uncovered the Real True Truth that the rest of the world overlooked because they're not you.

 

Edit: Lol' date=' I'm not going to leave because you can't accept another person's opinion, and cannot accept that another person has had real life experiences.

[/quote']

 

My opinion is that the theory of gravity is a lie. I base this on my life experience of seeing birds fly. You can't argue with me.

 

I lol'd. Hard.

 

Truly, that was funny.

Birds flying is easily explained, and known by all. However, homosexuality being a choice or not, even with psychologists saying what they have, is still an argument going on.

Unless you can think of a better example, I'm going to think of your arguments as nothing more than laughable.

 

As for the experiences, I've had gay people admit that it was just a choice. Also, gay people go back to being straight at times. Straight people go gay. Sometimes, people have "gay experiences," ect.

Don't confuse an opinion for ignorance, Craby.

[CrabHelmet]

Birds flying is easily explained' date=' and known by all.

[/quote']

 

I don't trust Wikipedia's explanation. I see birds flying, which disproves gravity. I trust my own eyes and experiences. Gravity being real or not, even with physicists saying what they have, is still an argument going on.

 

However' date=' homosexuality being a choice or not, even with psychologists saying what they have, is still an argument going on.

[/quote']

 

There is no argument; the scientific community has a total consensus. When an "argument" is between a side with all scientific data and evidence supporting it and a side with truthiness and bellyfeel supporting it, no true argument exists.

 

As for the experiences' date=' I've had gay people admit that it was just a choice.

[/quote']

 

Just because they say it's a choice doesn't mean they're actually right. Also, the bisexual thing I mentioned in my last post.

 

Also' date=' gay people go back to being straight at times. Straight people go gay. Sometimes, people have "gay experiences," ect.

[/quote']

 

American Psychological Association time.

 

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

 

Should be fairly self-explanatory.

 

Don't confuse an opinion for ignorance' date=' Craby.

[/quote']

 

Don't confuse my opinion that gravity doesn't exist for ignorance either.

 

Eh, I'm sure you're right; sexuality is totally a choice and all those silly scientists just weren't as smart as you because they never thought of asking your friends. Because that's obviously the most probable explanation.

[Yankee]

^ So you continue with the bird thing? Again, laughable.

 

An opinion is an opinion.

 

Live with it.

 

Thanks for playing however ^_\\\

[CrabHelmet]

^ So you continue with the bird thing? Again' date=' laughable.

[/quote']

 

An opinion is an opinion.

 

Live with it.

 

Thanks for playing however ^_\\\

 

Oh, and by the way, I've never seen any animals evolve, so I'm pretty sure evolution is a lie too.

[Yankee]

Don't be hypocritical, Crabby ^_\\\

[CrabHelmet]

Don't be hypocritical' date=' Crabby ^_\\\

[/quote']

 

Don't confuse a parody for hypocrisy, Lusty.

[Yankee]

Sorry, forgot to put that I was joking. Seeing as how your "opinion" on birds is fake, and my opinion is real, I cannot ever accept that argument. <3

 

Simply put,

This is my opinion.

Live with it.

 

Thanks for playing however ^_\\\