O'Reilly guest Rudov "fear[s] ... the long-term consequences for children" of "promoting" "homosexual lifestyle"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, author Marc Rudov said: "I think we are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and I fear ... the long-term consequences for children." However, studies have consistently found no evidence that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer adverse effects in their psychosocial development.
On the April 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly introduced his "Back of the Book" segment by asserting, "There's no question that some powerful forces in America want to mainstream the gay lifestyle, and now, you can decide whether that's a good or a bad thing, because it's all on the table." During the segment, author and radio host Marc Rudov said: "I think we are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and I fear for the consequences -- the long-term consequences for children." While Rudov did not explain what those "consequences" might be, he went on to assert:
RUDOV: You know, just this week, a report came out that said using cell phones is more dangerous than smoking, but the effects are very long-term. If there's going to be a brain tumor, it might not be discovered for 10 years -- and I kind of look at this in the same way, because children do form their sexual identities from their same-sex parents. And what's going on here is basically teaching children that there's no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.
Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover then replied: "I have to object to this notion that children form their sexuality and their sexual identity from their parents. The truth is that scientists, biologists, we don't know how sexuality is formed in people," adding, "[T]o suggest that people are going to be gay if they're raised by gay parents is just scientifically unfounded. You just can't say that. You can posit that, but you can't say that's the fact." Indeed, in the American Psychological Association's publication Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Dr. Charlotte J. Patterson wrote in a chapter titled "Children of Lesbian & Gay Parents":
A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity, sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mickach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok & Tasker, 1996; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both lesbian mothers and gay fathers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents.
In addition, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, studies have consistently found no evidence that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer adverse effects in their psychosocial development.
Media Matters previously noted the promotional ad for the April 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that asked: "Is the media celebrating gay culture?" as well as O'Reilly's assertion on August 15, 2007, that: "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff" -- despite numerous subsequent instances of his apparently failing to do so. During the April 4 segment, O'Reilly asked Hoover: "[Y]ou're appalled by this mainstreaming, correct? After she replied, "Not at all," O'Reilly pressed: "[E]ven when the mainstreaming now has become fairly intrusive?" Later, when Hoover said, "This is a very new thing in our culture, accepting homosexuality as a regular occurrence," O'Reilly asked: "And you say it's a good thing?" Hoover replied: "I'm not suggesting that we promote a homosexual lifestyle and we impose it on people, but I am suggesting that it is important to be reflective of our culture and to not kibosh people from the mainstream."
From the April 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Back of the Book" segment tonight: There's no question that some powerful forces in America want to mainstream the gay lifestyle, and now, you can decide whether that's a good or a bad thing, because it's all on the table.
One of the leaders of the movement is Rosie O'Donnell, who actively promotes gay cruises.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): You can camp it up, don't be shy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (singing): 'Cause we welcome each gal and guy.
ROSIE O'DONNELL (singing): Whether gay, straight, trans, or bi.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: That wasn't one of the funniest movie clips, that was a real thing. Joining us now from San Francisco with reaction to mainstreaming the gay lifestyle, Marc Rudov, host of The Marc Rudov Show on MarcRudovRadio.com.
Did I say your name enough there, Marc? We got three --
RUDOV: A few more times, Bill.
O'REILLY: -- three in 10 seconds. And Fox News analyst Margaret Hoover, who is here in New York -- and you're appalled by this mainstreaming, correct?
HOOVER: Not at all.
O'REILLY: No?
HOOVER: Not at all. Look, a conservative feminist stands for increasing personal responsibility and increasing personal freedom, and there is nothing about this -- I mean, these are private people, individuals, in their private lives spending their own money, leading their own lifestyle, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Their pursuit of happiness involves this, and frankly, there are kids out there that need families and parents that love them. There are plenty of broken homes that don't have parents --
O'REILLY: All right, so --
HOOVER: -- that love these kids, and so, I don't have a problem with this.
O'REILLY: Even -- even when the mainstreaming now has become fairly intrusive? You know, you look at television or you pick up a newspaper and, you know --
HOOVER: Is it really intrusive, though?
O'REILLY: To some people.
HOOVER: Or is it intrusive --
O'REILLY: To some people.
HOOVER: -- because people aren't used to seeing and acknowledging homosexuality as a normal part of our culture?
O'REILLY: Yes. Some people don't believe it is.
HOOVER: Look, are we going to be [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's Iran and pretend like homosexually doesn't exist? Or are we going to acknowledge that it exists in the media, as it exists in real life?
And frankly, 1970 [sic] was the first time a star was cast as an openly gay person in a sitcom -- Billy Crystal played in Soap. This is a very new thing in our culture, accepting homosexuality as a regular occurrence.
O'REILLY: And you say it's a good thing?
HOOVER: I -- frankly, I just think it's reflective of reality. I'm not suggesting that we promote a homosexual lifestyle and we impose it on people, but I am suggesting that it is important to be reflective of our culture and to not kibosh people from the mainstream.
O'REILLY: All right. What do you say, Marc?
RUDOV: Well, I think we are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and I fear for the consequences -- the long-term consequences for children.
You know, just this week, a report came out that said using cell phones is more dangerous than smoking, but the effects are very long-term. If there's going to be a brain tumor, it might not be discovered for 10 years -- and I kind of look at this in the same way, because children do form their sexual identities from their same-sex parents. And what's going on here is basically teaching children that there's no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.
You know, in California, for example, in October of last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SP-777. It's a new law that says you can't use "Mom," "Dad," "husband and wife" in textbooks anymore. Girls can come to school dressed as boys; boys can come to school dressed as girls. They can use each other's lavatories. And all of this is so not to offend gays and transgenders and bisexuals --
O'REILLY: Well, that's part of the mainstreaming --
RUDOV: -- who are about 6 percent of the population.
O'REILLY: Yeah, that's part of the mainstreaming of the --
RUDOV: That's right. But the --
O'REILLY: -- of the situation. Go ahead, Margaret.
[crosstalk]
HOOVER: I've got to object --
RUDOV: And the 94 percent of us who aren't in that --
O'REILLY: Wait, wait, Marc. Let --
HOOVER: Marc, I've got to object --
RUDOV: -- we have to go along with it.
HOOVER: But, Marc, I have to object to this notion that children form their sexuality and their sexual identity from their parents. The truth is that scientists, biologists, we don't know how sexuality is formed in people, and to suggest that people are going to be gay if they're raised by gay parents is just scientifically unfounded. You just can't say that. You can posit that, but you can't say that's the fact.
You -- I -- if you're going to be worried about the future of children and children growing up in same-sex couples, you ought to be a heck of a lot more worried about deadbeat dads and broken homes and inner city America, because there are a whole lot of people and kids that are growing up that don't have parents that love them.
O'REILLY: All right. I'm giving Marc the last word. Go ahead.
RUDOV: Well, you know, what's interesting is there's some hypocrisy going on here when it comes to mainstreaming, because it's kind of like Eliot Spitzer going after prostitutes when he was using prostitutes himself.
Now, the far-left liberals are supposed to be the main supporters of the gay lifestyle. Yet, when I go on TV or the radio to expose the double standards of women, they're the first ones to come after me to call me gay and queer, which proves that they're lying. They don't support the gay lifestyle, so all of this mainstreaming, in my opinion, is a cover-up for something else.
O'REILLY: All right. There you go. "He Said, She Said," everybody. Thank you Margaret, Marc.
"Pinheads & Patriots" next, starring Yoko Ono and Mia Farrow -- don't miss this one. Right back with it.
I'm sorry but this is the first time that MMFA has made me laugh repeatedly with their citations.
Is it just me?
Let's see, I would rather have had gay parents than to have what many children do not have today -
NO PARENTS AT ALL
Why do you hate children so much?
MM is misleading their readers with the patently false claim that "studies have consistently found no evidence that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer adverse effects in their psychosocial development."
In fact, a number of adverse effects have been extensively documented:
"Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting" (pdf file)
It's not cool at all for MM to so blatantly misinform their readers like this. Not cool at all.
How far did you have to did to find that gay-bashing paper, Shoes?
All I know is my two adult children (one son. one daughter) were raised by their mother - who came out as a lesbian after we divorced in 1979 - and several of her partners. And they both turned out fine. (BTW, they're both straight, with absolutely no gender identification issues.)
Doxens of peer-reviewed studies confirm what I've seen with my own children, Shoes. If you're gonna engage in gay-bashing, why don't you go somewhere that it's encouraged - like Free RepubliKKK or FoKKKus On The Family.
Decent try, though.
You're absolutely right. Maybe MMFA should have said "halfway objective, credible studies," since the one you've linked to was authored by one of the founders of the Family Research Council.
Or as I've always referred to them, the Fake Research Council. Because most of their "research" is bogus.
Yep. I'm sure it took Shoes mere seconds to find this "support" from such a reliably biased "source."
Yep. I'm sure it took Shoes mere seconds to find this "support" from such a reliably biased "source."
Homophobes usually have that crap at their fingertips, to make it look like they know what they're talking about. When they don't.
Wow shoes, did you read this part?
"The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case."
You do realize that that little editor's note dismisses your entire argument don't you?
You do realize that that little editor's note dismisses your entire argument don't you?
AHA!!!!!! You lose, Shoes.
Has anyone else noticed that Shoes just dropped off that little gay-bashing bomb and split?
Come back and defend yourself, Shoes. You might just learn something in the process.
Everyone here is simply attacking the source. Again, this is committing the logical error called the "genetic fallacy," in which the source is attacked, rather than the information itself. Not cool - and very lazy.
All I see here is mean-spirited name-calling. I present contrary evidence, and I'm branded a "homophobe"? Puh-leeze. Also ... The research is called "bogus" without a shred of evidence to back it up.
As far as the AK DA's motion to dismiss contrary evidence, THAT PROVES MY POINT! There DOES exist evidence that shows adverse effects.
Again - MM is being dishonest.
No, Shoes - YOU are being dishonest by posting links to bogus, biased sources thaty prove nothing except adherence to an anti-gay agenda.
You really need to open up your mind, Shoes - you'll learn nothing of value from the Family Research/Focus on the Family crowd.
It mus really drive you self-rigteous right-wing homophobes nuts to know that two of the biggest conservatives in the country - Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes - both fathered lesbian daughters.....
Everyone here is simply attacking the source. Again, this is committing the logical error called the "genetic fallacy," in which the source is attacked, rather than the information itself. Not cool - and very lazy.
If the source is biased, Shoes, how can the information they present be anything BUT biased? You keep posting links to bogus sources that provide nothing but bogus information. No wonder you think the way you do - you've been brainwashed.
"As far as the AK DA's motion to dismiss contrary evidence, THAT PROVES MY POINT! There DOES exist evidence that shows adverse effects."
Ok, I concede the point that I misread the editorial note and I apologize, but I also just finished reading the entire study and I must say, a lot of his conclusions are specious. Specifically, his entire study was put forth on the notion that at least one parental unit undertaking foster care had homosexual tendencies while mentioning nothing about committed couples in a long term relationship. None of his corollary evidence relies on committed homosexual couples. Adults who are committed to each other aren't likely to have "“…(a) lack of a domestic partner; not identifying as gay, queer, or homosexual" etc.
Basically, his whole argument hinges on the studies of single gay men, not committed gay couples.
And also, a lot of his basis for psychiatric disorders are environmentally drawn, meaning that our culture forces these psychiatric disorders on a homosexual. So, change the culture and those problems go away.
Otherwise, I agree that foster-parent "households with a homosexual behaving adult member" are not an ideal environment for children placed in foster care, however, he never defines what "homosexual behaving adult member" means. It could be an uncle that lives in the house, or one of the parents is cheating with a member of the same sex. He's never clear on that, which leads to suspicious conclusions.
The study does not contradict Media Matters' statement that "studies have consistently found no evidence that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer adverse effects in their psychosocial development." It only states that foster children are more likely to suffer adverse effects, as that study was specifically written for the Arkansas regulation case. and the whole study concludes that imposing undue stress factors on foster children should be avoided at all costs.
The study also concludes that foster parents should not be un-employed, be blind or deaf, hold a criminal record, or only speak Thai. Does that mean that blind or deaf couples can not raise a child? or un-employed people? I hardly think so.
Nice try, but that study does not conclude anything about homosexual couples raising children from birth, or adopting children into a stable homosexual home.
" It only states that foster children are more likely to suffer adverse effects, as that study was specifically written for the Arkansas regulation case."
Also, foster children are likely to have social and psychiatric disorders in the first place, as the study suggests, anywhere between "29-96%" of foster children have some form of a disorder.
No apology necessary, Dbeden!! Think about it. The attorney probably felt that presenting/allowing such "evidence" would be tantamount to perpetrating a fraud on the court -- a real no-no.
Either way, if you read the study, it in no way proves Shoes point.
Did Shoes have a point?
Ya got nothin. You never do.
Apparantly, Shoes has shoes....
the Commercial Teasers, leading up to the full report, implied (insinuated...?)
that a genetic male (anatomically, and chromosomally speaking) was "pregnant".
This (not completely impossible) phenomenom would have
at least had scientific significance.
He doesn't hate children, he has a point about how children are bullied in school.
Just because they don't have a mom or dad? I can't remember any of my school friends being bullied because their mom or dad DIED or they were divorced.
Think about this she-man? How could a boy or girl explain that his/her father is the one who gave birth?
Very easily. Neither of them did.
Technically this is still a trans-gender person. Since, boy's who grow in to adult men do not have female ovaries and reproductive organs so that not the issue...... it's explaining to others how your She dad gave birth
Are you one of the cave men trying to transport the Bud Light using the newly-invented wheel?
Bigotry is a choice.
Next thing you know, Mr. "No-Spin Zone" will be pushing for legislation proscribing "insulting Americanism" based on Article 301 of Turkey's Penal Code (as proscribes "insulting Turkishness")....
Do we REALLY want someone who doesn't know the difference between a loofa and a falafel doing ANYTHING with a "penal code"???? :-)
Science?
PHILIB?
Here's PHILIB's two rocks theory.
http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200801250016?show=1
I'm sorry, but WHO are they hurting exactly? And if you think that merely growing up and realizing your gay somehow makes you a victim (as opposed to say, being persecuted for it, which I guess is OK with you) who exactly RAISED the current (and previous) generations of gays and lesbians? Seems to me that 20-30 years ago (and farther back) that gays by and large didn't (weren't allowed to) marry, have/adopt childeren etc... So again WHO raied this and all previous generations of gays? Um... that would STRAIT PARENTS. And um... you would be an IDIOT. Get your nose out of the bible and your head out of your @$$.
Exactly why I'm puzzled by the opposition to gay marriage. The right-wing loonies say that it "destroys the sanctity of marriage". Well, my wife and I have been married for 15 years now, and if two guys or two gals get hitched, it has no effect whatsoever on our marriage.
If the right-wing loonies were REALLY concerned about the "sanctity of marriage", they would protest Pamela Anderson' multiple marriages, or Britney Spears' marriage that only lasted minutes.
It is a normal lifestyle though. It's not the majority behavior, but it isn't abnormal.
The weatherman in my town always talks about the normal temperature for a particular day. There's no normal temperature though. There's an average temperature for any particular day, but it's not normally that temperature.
You're getting normal and average mixed up. The average person walking down the street is not gay, but that doesn't mean that they're the only normal ones.
That's right. Nothing funny about allowing children to learn an abominable lifestyle as if it's a normal one.
I'd rather see children in a household headed by a loving gay couple than one headed by hate-filled conservatives.
That's right. Nothing funny about allowing children to learn an abominable lifestyle as if it's a normal one.
Actually, hatred is the MOST abominable lifestyle, especially self-righteous hatred.
I don't often agree with Ms. Hoover on politics, though she seems generally level-headed. How she gets on O'Reilly's show, I have no idea.
By the by Bill, you might want to vet your guests more completely. "Doesn't this sicken you, Hoover?" "Not really, no." "It doesn't?!?!? Umm ... I ... uh ... <head exploding>" You need to make sure sure your guests go along with your homophobic (yet strangely homosexually-obsessed) views.
"just this week, a report came out that said using cell phones is more dangerous than smoking"
What a jerkoff.
Now, the far-left liberals are supposed to be the main supporters of the gay lifestyle. Yet, when I go on TV or the radio to expose the double standards of women, they're the first ones to come after me to call me gay and queer, which proves that they're lying. (Rudov)
Let's see, very uncomfortable with women and had to learn to be heterosexual by imitating his dad.Gee, Mark, I don't know where anybody would get the idea.
I hope one day Rudov figures out that those trying to help him come out aren't anti-gay, they're just trying to get another self-hating closet case gay basher off the streets.
If that was true the the reverse is also true where all Moms and Dads were happy and straight , so where did all the homosexuals come from? Hey, Bill don't shake the family tree, you never know what may fall out.
Well, at least O'Reilly had on as the counterpoint to Rudov, a conservative who gets it. Kudos to Margaret Hoover for providing some sense and a coherent take on this idiotic notion that gay parents inevitably produce gay children.
Now everyone is entitled to their opinion of gay people and if they personally approve or not of their orientation, but to demonize decent people with this sweeping and hideously unfounded accusation of gays "promoting" their lifestyle and somehow indoctrinating children is flat out offensive and disgusting. No responsible journalist, which should include Bill O'Reilly, should allow this fearmongering nonsense to go unchallenged - yet he sat there and let Rudov spin and distort, when he constantly touts his "no spin zone".......ridiculous.
So, O'Reilly has a problem with the gay lifestyle, and obviously the ever fearful "mainstreaming" of it, whatever that means? Let him voice his opinion then, instead of "hiding behind his desk" and allowing other more openly hostile guests who share his views spew their misinformation so he can act above it, or whatever role he feels proud to take as some referee.
In any event, children need loving homes and responsible parenting. Gay people are raising decent and honorable children throughout this country and they deserve our respect and admiration, they don't deserve to be slimed with such misconceptions and sleazy homophobic hatred that Rudov suggests, and O'Reilly obviously condones.
They both ought to be ashamed.
TOMMY,
It isn't every day that I might agree with a post of yours.... but you are so dead on that its scary!
As for this Rudov guy..... under what rock is this guy from? Until he began to appear on BillO's little show... I had never heard of him....
Is he BillO's secret luv? Sean's? (M)ann Coulter?
Great...... I just killed any chance of getting sleep tonite without these images screwing it up!! Sorry all!
Who the hell are you, and what have you done with Tommy?!
Just kidding. I'm with you 100% on this. Good post. Don't think we've ever been so much in agreement.
Tommy -
Speaking as the father of two happy, well-adjusted, heterosexual children (one son, one daughter) who were raised by their lesbian mother and her partners, thank you.
The one thing my children learned from their lesbian mother was tolerance of others. Something that is all too lacking in many on your side of the aisle.
It goes back to an interview he did with Carrie Fisher a few years ago, and in his creepy intro, he stated that he had developed a crush on her when he first saw her in Star Wars, that he was "just a kid at the time", and it was then that he "decided to become heterosexual". The problem with this is that O'Reilly was born in 1949, and the first Star Wars movie was released in 1977, when Bill-O was 28 years old.
Creepy. Just creepy.
BOSTON,
I certainly have zero doubt that BillO made this claim in an interview..... and have a negative doubt from zero that this wasn't just a simple freudian slip on his part
I'm not sure if its morbid curiousity or that I simply want you to post a link to this interview..... in fact... I'm not completely sure I want to see it.... but ask for it anyways..... presuming it exists?
Perhap then we can link to it on BillO's own blog?
Read the transcript...... and just like the little audio clip that Stephanie Miller plays at times during Right-Wing world.....
I.... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit
BilldO's only 60? I thought he was closer to 80.
His I.Q. is around 60. :-)
It goes back to an interview he did with Carrie Fisher a few years ago, and in his creepy intro, he stated that he had developed a crush on her when he first saw her in Star Wars, that he was "just a kid at the time", and it was then that he "decided to become heterosexual". The problem with this is that O'Reilly was born in 1949, and the first Star Wars movie was released in 1977, when Bill-O was 28 years old.
Maybe in his youth, Billy Boy actually developed a crush on Carrie Fisher's father - EDDIE Fisher.....
This particular post of mine has zero to do with this thread..... this is a question to all of you that read this and might be able to do me a favor.... I'm doing a report for my government class.... I thought I had heard Thom Hartmann on his show speak about his book "Cracking the Code" that Thom wrote about the Nuremburg Trial's vs todays use of waterboarding and that we have no credibility or whatever to demand others can't do the same or something like that......
Anyways.... my report is due (Wed morning).... I'll be in school all day on Tues until 3pm and then work by 4pm... I will have no time to get my hands on the book.....
Does anyone own it? If so.... can you please post what chapter and page this is? So that I can site it....presumming I heard Thom correctly? Or I'll simply remove the two sentences?
Captain, I do not believe anyone here with help you with your homework. If anyone should, O'Reilly will have MMFA on a skewer for helping raise a person in this awful culture of truth and thoughtfulness. You wouldn't want that would you. He may also demote you to 1st. Lt. or have you court martialed for whatever assinine thought comes into his head. It may even be treason in BilloWorld. Remember, his little wusses' read this for him. Proof, he knows everything that happens here.
Besides, we don't want Rudov the BrownShirt Reindeer to have a new subject for his show---Internet Cheating Causes Cancer--- P.S. What show?
I agree with you 100% and I love your work on the pan flute. ;-)
in October of last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SP-777. It's a new law that says you can't use "Mom," "Dad," "husband and wife" in textbooks anymore.
Well hello there blatant lie! I thought that this seemed just a little bit too out there to be even close to true so I looked it up. After filtering out the freeper and wingnut sites that all posted a variation of this lie I found the text of SB-777 on the CA legislative website. It's a very long bill pertaining to all kinds of things about the administration of CA public schools, establish of charter schools, standards and curriculum and that sort of thing. One of the things it does do is extend the existing anti-discrimination rules in place that cover "race, sex, color, creed, handicap,
national origin, or ancestry" to "disability,
gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation,
or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate
crimes that is contained in the Penal Code."
But it never mentions the use of the words "mom," "dad" or "husband and wife" or the creation of a coed restroom policy. That all comes from the wingnut interpretation.
What a surprise, yet another "social conservative" lying through his teeth to promote an agenda. Hey Rudov, why not just admit that you're upset that society is no longer turning a blind eye to mental and physical gay-bashing? That's the real story here, you want back your god given right to call a man a queer and beat the holy hell out of him for it.
"In addition, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented studies have consistently found no evidence that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer adverse effects in their psychosocial development."
Is this another example of the "Hilary Syndrome"? If you lie enough, eventually people will believe one of your lies?
"We'll accept you as you are."
There! That is exactly what I'm talking about. You have no intention of accepting me as I am. Why do you lie like that? If you were honest with me and the rest of the world you would simply say you hate me and wish I'd die a horrible death. But, the truth is... you will NEVER accept me as I am.
If you were honest with me and the rest of the world you would simply say you hate me and wish I'd die a horrible death.
No, Phil - we don't want you to die. We want you to open up your mind and LEARN SOMETHING.
You want me to change into what you are because I am different than you.
Speaking for myself, it's disappointing to see someone so driven by fear and hatred. For you, that is fear of the "gay" lifestyle and hatred of anything liberal; or for that matter, anything fact-based that differs from your wingnut brainwashing.
Everyone 'can' tell the truth, the question is 'does' a liberal tell the truth.
Liberals tell the truth all the time, Phil. Unfortunately, conservatives have surrounded themselves with lies for so long, they can't recognize the truth.
PHLIBBER, do you remember when you decided to become heterosexual? Was it a tough choice? Did you flip a coin?
"do you remember when you decided to become heterosexual?"
Gee... uh... I don't remember. I must have been born this way. Now, you hypocritical people better start accepting me for who I am or all your arguements 'that we should accept people for who they are because we are all born that way' are lies. Which would, of course, further my stance that liberals lie continuously and unceasingly.
We accept your heterosexuality.
It's your bigotry that you weren't born with that we don't condone.
"It's your bigotry that you weren't born with that we don't condone."
How do you know I wasn't born a bigot? I did convert to Christianity a few years ago, is that when my bigotry started? I guess it's wrong to try to help those who are facing adversity because of their lifestyles? Perhaps only the liberal is allowed to give lifestyle advise? I think being a liar would not be a good lifestyle choice.
Which is worse: being a liar? or being a bigot?
What if a bigot is a liar? Is he really a bigot? And what if a liar is a bigot? Well, then he is a terrible human being.
Back to the subject, do you think cellphones cause brain tumors?
What he meant was EMF (Electro Magnetic Forces).
But from the most current scientific literature out there, it appears that Phil doesn't know what the heck he's talking about again, since there are NO ties between EMF and cancer, but hey, keep trying Phil. You might get something right today.
http://skepdic.com/emf.html
Is there anything he's correct about?
I wonder if his name is really Phil.....
State Research Center of Russia-Institute of Biophysics, Moscow. prof.GRIGORIEV@pole.com.ru
" The real possibility of the development of remote effects in people after longterm EMF-exposure was presented in the world scientific literature. Many authors decided that there is connection between long-term EMF-exposure and development of the breast cancer, brain tumours, leukaemia and neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). The analysis of up-to-date publications leads us to the conclusion that this problem is actual and further researches of conditions provoking development of last-term effects are required. "
I hope this source isn't too conservative. I hate it when you refer to liberal sites and expect me to fully/unconditionally accept it as fact, when you won't do the same when I produce conservative sites.
Electromagnetic Fields = EF Two words, two letters. You are welcome to add the M if you choose.
Aren't you the one who demanded I stop using conservative links as evidence that support my 'theories'?? Well, when you provide a link that isn't to an ultra liberal commentator, there might be a believable aspect to your arguement. However, as it stands, you have proven nothing except that you will search and search the internet until you find the one link that supports your theory and then claim all science believes what your one link tells you to believe.
You're very talented.
However, as it stands, you have proven nothing except that you will search and search the internet until you find the one link that supports your theory and then claim all science believes what your one link tells you to believe.
Hardly, Phil. Information supporting our viewpoint can easily be found through a simple Google search. YOU are the one who has to go to selected ulttra-conservative sites to find worthless crap that supports your agenda.
" Information supporting our viewpoint can easily be found through a simple Google search"
Mine was too.
We should all be dropping like flies from brain tumors in the next year or two then right? Since the majority of American adults have been using cell phones for right around ten years now.
Maybe you haven't noticed that there already IS an increase in cancer cases throughout the nation/world. Hmmm, I wonder what is causing that?
Cancer is a complex and varied disease, Phil. It's causes are equally complex and varied. Which must be hard for someone as single-minded as you to grasp with your one-dimensional "back-or-white" reasoning patterns.
"Cancer is a complex and varied disease, Phil. It's causes are equally complex and varied."
So complex and varied YOU can absolutely gaurantee that cell phones and/or E[M]F will never give anyone cancer? Come on! Give us all that gaurantee! You have all the proof that it does NOT cause cancer. I can not believe you will sit there and attempt to tell me what will not cause cancer then tell me that cancer is "a complex and varied" disease.
"Rudov the BrownShirt Reindeer "
Well, I guess that makes you a terrible human being. A bigot and a liar.
"And you Mr. dear Phillib...you are..a Good Christian?"
I do not make that claim. I am a work in progress. I'll find out how "good" I was when my time expires and judgement is made.
I do not make that claim. I am a work in progress. I'll find out how "good" I was when my time expires and judgement is made.
Yet YOU have no problem making judgement on others, Phil - calling all gays "abominations" and all liberals "liars".
"Yet YOU have no problem making judgement on others, Phil - calling all gays "abominations" and all liberals "liars". "
My duty as a Christian is to judge evil when I see it. I am not directed to aproach evil and/or evil lifestyles. I am expected to promote the Word of God. The gay lifestyle is an abomination (said several times in Bible). Liberals lie. I can't help it if you people keep proving it to be true.
My duty as a Christian is to judge evil when I see it. I am not directed to aproach evil and/or evil lifestyles. I am expected to promote the Word of God. The gay lifestyle is an abomination (said several times in Bible). Liberals lie. I can't help it if you people keep proving it to be true.
I've run into your kind before, Phil - especially during the eight years I worked in Colorado Springs, Home of Focus On The Family and world headquarters for undamentalist Christian hatred. You have a right to believe whatever you wish to believe. But you do NOT have the right to impose those beliefs on others.
You may think the Bible is the word of God, but it isn't. It's a collection of stories that were one passed from generation to generation that were eventually written down. And many of the stories (such as the flood and virgin birth) were appropriated from earlier cultures. At best, the Bible is fiction - and bad fiction at that.
(BTW, I used to be a Catholic, but left the Church more than 30 years ago. I evolved - it looks like you have chosen not to.)
And just because we liberals think differently than you, it does not mean that we lie. Your side does not have a monopoly on truth - in fact, many parts of the conservative agenda (especially those of the Religious Right) are built on a foundation of lies.
"You may think the Bible is the word of God, but it isn't. It's a collection of stories that were one passed from generation to generation that were eventually written down. And many of the stories (such as the flood and virgin birth) were appropriated from earlier cultures. At best, the Bible is fiction - and bad fiction at that. "
"And just because we liberals think differently than you, it does not mean that we lie. "
Where should I start? A liberal telling me that "facts" prove the Bible is a bad fiction book. Then that liberal says he doesn't lie. OK, mr 'never-lie' liberal, what proof do you have that shows as FACT the Bible is a work of fiction? You say the Bible is fiction, now it's time to prove it or accept that liberals lie every chance they get.
You don't like me forcing my opinion on you, but apparently, you have NO problem forcing your opinion on me. Is that the usual process of a liberal; "I can't do it, but you can"??
what proof do you have that shows as FACT the Bible is a work of fiction?
Let's start with Genesis, Chapter 1: God created the earth in six days, or something like that.
I'm pretty sure that's not true, which kind of sets the stage for the rest of the book being fiction, don't you think?
"I'm pretty sure that's not true,"
Pretty sure? Well, that certainly takes the air out of my case!! Aha ha ha.
OK, Smarty Pants - PROVE that the Earth was created in six days.
You can't. So Foghorn's post is valid.
"OK, Smarty Pants - PROVE that the Earth was created in six days."
Not so fast! I do not make any claims the earth was created in 6 days. I claim the Bible is not a book of fiction.
froggy used the right verse, but he didn't pay attention to what he was reading (duhh...). Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.". Where in that verse does God say how long it took Him to create the earth? It could have been 6 seconds or 6 trillion years. Since God created it, how long it took makes no matter to me. I just know God created it. Do you have any other explanation for the creation of the heavens and the earth?
Perhaps you can give some absolute facts. Zits thinks "beliefs" aren't credible, so I would have to say "theories" would not be credible either. Do you have any absolute proof on the creation of the heavens and the earth? None? Go figure.
You don't like me forcing my opinion on you, but apparently, you have NO problem forcing your opinion on me. Is that the usual process of a liberal; "I can't do it, but you can"??
I'm not forcing my opinion on you, Phil - I'm only voicing it. If you can't handle the thought of people who think, feel, or act differently than you do, you're gonna go through life facing one conflict after another.
All I'm saying is that there is no way of knowing whether what you believe is the truth. There ARE no truths in religion - only what people believe to be true. Why do you think they're called "religious beliefs"???
My duty as a Christian is to judge evil when I see it. I am not directed to aproach evil and/or evil lifestyles. I am expected to promote the Word of God. The gay lifestyle is an abomination (said several times in Bible). Liberals lie. I can't help it if you people keep proving it to be true. - Philib
Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So, it is not your duty. God is the Judge, your JOB as a Christian is to be Christ-like. Love thy neighbor. Hate the sin, love the sinner. You have a lot of work to do, because I don't see a lot of love from you. Turn the other cheek.
Also, the same Book (Leviticus) that condemns homosexuality, says you can't eat shellfish or wear clothing made from more than one fabric. Are you following those tenets to the letter as well? I could go look up a whole bunch of other ridiculous things you're not allowed or required to do, as dictated by the Bible, so if you want to rely on that as your source for everything you're supposed to do, you've got a long checklist.
By the way, do you really think some people lived to be over 900 years old? (Lazarus, Noah, Job) Do you really think people just turned into pillars of salt? (Lot's wife) It's a book of stories, parables, and fairy tales. If you take it literally, you're an idiot, and that's no lie. It's just an opinion, but it also happens to be true.
"your JOB as a Christian is to be Christ-like. Love thy neighbor. Hate the sin, love the sinner."
How am I to know "evil" if I don't make a judgement? God has made the judgement that homosexuality is an abomination, I agree with God. Are you saying that God's judgement is incorrect? But, to clarify things, where have I said the pregnant man is evil? Check my posts and show me. I remember being consistantly against the lifestyle, which God has made a judgement against.
It astounds me at how sure you are that you are able to divine the message of God so clearly from a book written thousands of years ago, and has been changed dozens of time over it's history. Would that we all had such clarity.
The only thing that you have that tells you that the Bible is the word of God, is the word of other people who also have no idea. It's never crossed your mind that they may have had ulterior motives, such as power, or money, to get everyone to believe this story.
" Are you following those tenets to the letter as well? I could go look up a whole bunch of other ridiculous things you're not allowed or required to do, as dictated by the Bible, so if you want to rely on that as your source for everything you're supposed to do, you've got a long checklist."
I do not need to defend the Bible. It will take care of itself.
I can ask you what does Jesus say in Matt 5:32 about sexual immorality? Or in 1 Thess 4:3? Or in 1 Corin 5:1? What exactly constitutes 'sexual immorality' to you? Do you consider homosexuality to be moral? I guess that's our difference... I don't.
PHILIB:
You said "How do you know I wasn't born a bigot?...I think being a liar would not be a good lifestyle choice. Which is worse: being a liar? or bing a bigot?" implying that you have no choice as to whether you are or are not a bigot. Your argument is specious--and the inherenet comparison to homosexuality is ridiculous. You DECIDE what you believe. Your sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
Finally--most bigots are liars. They lie to support their bigotry. Again, your comparison is weak.
Gee... uh... I don't remember. I must have been born this way.
Fine, Phil. Now - can you accept the fact that gay folks are ALSO born that way? That's it's not an "abomination", but a naturally-occurring phenomenon? That gays and lesbians are NO LESS WORTHY of respect and basic human rights than anyone else?
"That gays and lesbians are NO LESS WORTHY of respect and basic human rights than anyone else?"
Ok, we can agree on this one. Gay and lesbian people are absolutely worthy of respect and basic human rights. The homosexual lifestyle is still an abomination, though.
I think that as of right now, we can all accept the fact that Phil is a a close-minded, intolerant dolt. But he can change by opening his mind. The choice is his...
Can one tell the truth and not agree with you, Phil? Is everyone who disagrees with you lying? Is the truth out there? Just wondering.
Of course not. Phil is the final arbiter of the truth. Can't you guys see this? </sarcasm>
;)
1; "Can one tell the truth and not agree with you, Phil?"
2; "Is everyone who disagrees with you lying?"
3; "Is the truth out there?"
Arizona-lib 1; Of course the truth can be told and not agree with me. However, statements like: "war against Gays." and "How far did you have to did to find that gay-bashing paper" and "Free RepubliKKK or FoKKKus On The Family" make it difficult to believe there is truth coming from those who make statements like that.
2; Absolutely not. However, when someone lies to support their disagreement; ([the Bible] "It's a collection of stories that were one passed from generation to generation that were eventually written down.") then I'll mention it. If you have a stance that is in disagreement with mine, then state it. If you need to resort to comments like the above one, then you should expect to be called on it. Surely, when someone develops their opinion they do it with rational thought. If they explain their position using lies then I develop the opinion that they lie continuously.
3; The truth is out there. But, I think you'll find little (if any) truth at ultra-wing-nut web sites. Each end of the spectrum has it's own agenda, neither will believe the other and each will claim lies come from the other.
when someone lies to support their disagreement; ([the Bible] "It's a collection of stories that were one passed from generation to generation that were eventually written down.") then I'll mention it.
It's not a lie, but it's telling that you think it is. The Bible was written about 80 years after Jesus is thought to have died, in a language he didn't speak, by people who didn't know him. The stories were passed along by oral tradition before that. Since it's writing, it's been translated many times, and has been subject to the whims of kings and tyrants.
But you think it's the word of God. For argument's sake, let's say it started out that way. Since it was first written, it has been edited, added to, translated and mistranslated, and in every way passed through the hands of men hundreds of times, and it has been changed. Heck, there are multiple versions of the Bible, doesn't that tell you that something? Maybe some of the message got lost somewhere.
Just try a little critical thinking, it won't hurt you.
I have a book at home that shows definitive evidence that the Bible is derived from the stories of earlier civilizations, and even contradicts itself. When I go home tonight, I'll try to find it and post tha tital and author in this thread.
It was fascinating reading.
"I'm sure PHLIBBER will be glad to provide his research which proves the opposite."
http://www.maclaurin.org/article_detail.php?a_id=30 , Book: Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences (2nd ed.). Edited by Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel
I could provide more, but you wouldn't believe any of it, so why bother. Showing fake interest in alternative views is simply another way of being a liar.
And your extremely opinionated and homophobic link that takes details from a rather large and voluminous report and study way out of context to prove what they want to prove means what? Nothing actually, nothing at all...
You're trying to justify your own bigotry and all you come up with is that kids of homosexual parents might be gay? So what's wrong with that? You never said why is an abomination. Is it because the Bible says so? Oh, and remember, not the new Testament either, the old Testament says that. Last I checked, I don't see too many Christians worshipping or reading the old Testament. The people that read the old Testament are known as Jews. And they don't seem to have an issue with gay folks.
The gay "lifestyle" is the same as the hetero "lifestyle".
"And your extremely opinionated and homophobic link that takes details from a rather large and voluminous report and study way out of context to prove what they want to prove means what?"
It means I did what was asked of me. I was asked to provide a study that showed differently from the study you all worship. Whether YOU like OR approve of this study makes NO difference to me. You can read the book if you want more proof. But, the FACT is you are not interested in knowing truths, you are only interested in promoting your own beliefs. You don't care whether they are right or wrong, you simply want support for your beliefs. Anything opposite that belief is instantly and incredibly distasteful and harmful.
Too bad for you. Were you born closed minded or did you become that way?
Showed differently, but we were looking for something scientifically sound.
That was an opinion piece, not a study...
Philib, a book is never a study. A book can bring different studies together to form an over all argument, but a study is a peer-reviewed scientific research model that is generally published in one or more scientific journals.
One of my favorites for sexuality study is The Journal of Sexual Medicine. Notice they are peer-reviewed. That's an important function for any scientific study.
Phil, I could tell you to read books/studies that prove the other side but what good does that do. You feel that kids should be kept away from homosexuals because they could turn out "that way" which in your world is wrong/disgustiing. But what happens to the klds that are left without the love of caring parents? Wouldn't that be worse...your Bible should at least tell you that. I believe that you and your ilk will be proven wrong.
No more time to chat, natures call. So I adjourn to the Royal Throne, read up on my poker skills and perform a Royal Flush. Which will remind me of Rudov and his poops...I mean peeps.
But, the FACT is you are not interested in knowing truths, you are only interested in promoting your own beliefs. You don't care whether they are right or wrong, you simply want support for your beliefs. Anything opposite that belief is instantly and incredibly distasteful and harmful.
The same can be said of you, Phil. Your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with facts.
Some minds are like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set.
<source unknown - well, to me>
"Minds are like parachutes - they work best when fully open".
....says the man who refuses to accept/consider religion as a source of intelligence.
I went to the article and WOW, I am convinced, let these kids live in foster homes because Rosie O. wants acceptable people to adopt these children with NO parents, obviously heteroseuxal parents. But I think I finally realize what you are saying. You GOOD Christains, who use our President as a decider, want things your way because you are to blind to see anything out of your realm of hypocrisy.
Philib, now your turn to answer a question...how many of these foster children have you or your close circle of GOOD Christians adopted? That is not a slam, just a question. And do you think that going from no parents to "acceptable" parents is wrong?
Minor detail, but important, nonetheless.
Let's see if I get this right... liberals can use ultra-left wingnut pro-homo/devil worshipping/fascist screed links that "prove" their theories, but conservatives cannot use links that support their theories? Of course that makes sense.
Prince,
Your question of "How many do you know" is immaterial. If one knows a dozen, does that prove you wrong? If one does not know any, does it prove you right? In other words, there is no right or wrong answer.
The problem of many children in the foster care system is that they have special needs, either psychologically or physically or both. Unfortunately it takes a saint-like couple to undertake the added burden of adopting special needs older children.
My heart breaks for all of those children.
"Because if you believe there should be no abortions, then there will be a lot more kids given up by their mothers who feel they can't care for them."
Are you saying that there were more kids in the foster care system before abortions were legalized? And, is your claim that abortion reduced the number of children available to the foster care system? How about a little proof there, huh?
No, I said if there were no abortions, there would be be more kids given up for adoptions, as most women who get abortions cite their inability to care for a child as the main reason for getting the abortion. Logic and basic mathematical reasoning dictate that if they feel they can't care for the child, and they don't pursue an illegal abortion (which would still be present, don't kid yourself), that a significant percentage of babies that would have been aborted would be given up for adoption. Even if it's one percent, that's greater than the 0 percent who got aborted. It's a hypothetical. I made no historical statements. Try and keep up.
By the way, how many babies have you adopted?
Oh, and a right wing Christian study center (The Maclaurin Institute)? Come on, you can come up with a better source than that. Can't you? I doubt it.
Oh and Timothy Dailey? A guy that works for the Family Research Council? Yeah, I'm sure he took a purely analytical look at things and wasn't biased with his study results AT ALL... And it keeps saying that he's a PhD. But a PhD in what? Is he a PhD in English lit like Dr. Laura? Oh wait, he's got a PhD in religion. He's not even a scientist and has NO training in psychology at all or psychiatry.
Man, you know how to pick them.
Is he a PhD in English lit like Dr. Laura?
Isn't "Dr Laura's" Ph.D. in exercise physiology? Hell, if it was in English Lit. she wouldn't be so stunningly illiterate.
Isn't "Dr Laura's" Ph.D. in exercise physiology?
Yes.
I could provide more, but you wouldn't believe any of it, so why bother. Showing fake interest in alternative views is simply another way of being a liar.
"Alternative views" are one thing, Phil. Bogus "research papers" put forth by quasi-religious groups to advance their homophobic agenda is something else.
And posting links to those homophobic groups on MMFA makes you as big a liar as they are, Phil.
What's the general consensus in the "science" community regarding whether people are born either straight or gay, or whether it's somehow a product of environment?
Although I don't know where I got it from, its always been my belief that one's sexual desires in that regard are innate, meaning that we're born with them. That in part is why I never really understood the hoopla about "promoting' a gay lifestlye, whether through gay marriages or whatnot. I mean, even if people actively 'promoted' a gay lifestyle, so what. I really don't think that would, or could, influence a heterosexual's desire for women. And in the same vein, I really don't think promoting a 'straight' lifestyle would, or could, influence a homosexual's desire for the same sex.
I think it would depend on who you ask for that 'general consesous'. My opinion is the 'ice cream theory'. Example: Fred likes vanilla ice cream and has enjoyed it his entire life. Does that mean he was born to like vanilla ice cream? One day a Joe offers Fred chocolate ice cream and he likes it better than vanilla ice cream. Does this mean he was born to like chocolate ice cream? What if one day Fred discovers strawberry ice cream and suddenly likes that type. Was he born to like strawberry ice cream?
Which is why I think liberals prefer gay lifestyles to be taught in school. So that each kid can experience something different and they can choose which they like the most.
in my mind, the different flavors of ice-cream were women. yummy!!
you're right, not everyone likes sex. Humans run the gambit from overtly sexual to completely non-sexual, and everywhere in-between.
Have you ever heard of the Kinsey scale? There are seven different orientations in human sexuality, and something like only 5% of the human population are either strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. Most everyone falls into the 1-5 model.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html
This has been scientifically proven.
Oh, and btw, your ice cream analogy completely falls flat. If someone likes vanilla their whole life (let's assume vanilla means other men) and someone introduces him to chocolate (women) and he likes that too, then he still likes vanilla. That really has no relation to human sexuality.
Have you ever met anyone who's gay? Had any kind of discussion with them about why they are gay? They will never tell you it's just a choice they made. I mean, who chooses to be ostracized by their father and their friends.
And finally, you said earlier that you were born heterosexual. I agree, you were born more heterosexual than homosexual, and homosexuals are born more homosexual than heterosexual.
db,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that it has yet been determined that homosexuals are born genetically inclined to homosexuality.
"There are verifiable examples in nature that show that animals can be homosexual, and they're not influenced the same as humans are. From there, it's a very small step to say that many people are born gay."
What a crock!! You are now claiming to be a mind-reader. Not only a mind-reader, but one that can read minds of animals! How do you know animals are not influenced the same as humans? Can you understand what animals are saying when they 'talk' to each other? Should we be calling you Dr. Dolittle?
I have to say it would be a huge leap to come to the conclusion you come to without being able to talk to the animals, mr dolittle. But, that's how liberals work. Use whatever is available to prove their theories, even if it's a movie. Did you ever watch the movie; "The Ten Commandments"? Doesn't that prove the Bible is not a fiction book?
Wow! You people are simply amazing.
How do you know animals are not influenced the same as humans?
Because they're animals, jackass. Is this really where you're argument has sunk? Go to a dog park or a zoo sometime, see if animals act the same as humans. No? Then they're not the same as humans. If you think they are, I will give liver snaps when you do something right. You don't like liver snaps? But my dog loves them, she'll do anything for them, they influence her behavior. How about peanut butter? She wouldn't give two craps if I gave her a hundred dollar bill, but I bet I could influence the behavior of some people in the neighborhood with it, pretty successfully.
Of course, people like you argued a while ago that animals don't have souls. Now you're saying they're influenced the same way? Guess you didn't get the memo...
no, it hasn't been proven, but there is empirical evidence to suggest this is the case. It's still only a theory, but a theory in that the atomic model is a theory. We can't prove it, but there are ways to test for evidence that would suggest that homosexuality is innate, just as there are ways to test for the evidence of atoms.
I will refer you to this article, which sums up the many conflicting theories quite nicely. Particularly this paragraph:
"J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2]."
But then again, socio behaviorists have disagreed with the findings of the study and some conclude that environmental factors play a more dominant role in the development of homosexuality in adolescents.
You're not wrong, it's not established, and Lord knows if it ever will be. The thing is, there is evidence that it is both natural and environmentally influenced.
It has been observed in animals (penguins, dogs, etc.) to pursue homosexual relations when it is not the only option to them (the other gender was present and available). This kind of shuts down the "it isn't natural" argument.
On the other side, everyone is familiar with activities that go on in prison (not personally, of course). Men (and women) who are otherwise completely straight outside prison seek out homosexual relationships. Of course this is most likely due to deprivation (no access to opposite sex), and also could be a power exercise, but if this environment can influence sexual behaviors, which are typically not very malleable, especially to the degree of performing acts that would normally be repellant, why couldn't other evironments exude some influence on sexual behaviors?
That said, this guy's a lying crackpot, and I don't have any problem with homosexuals, just wanted to make a few points.
I ask heterosexuals to imagine switching. If you're a man, can you imagine yourself voluntarily being attracted to another man? Most would say no. All I know is that rather suddenly, at about 12, I was fascinated by girls. I never had those feelings about boys, and my father didn't have to tell me to like girls. Anecdotal, I know.... but I never had to choose.
"All I know is that rather suddenly, at about 12, I was fascinated by girls. I never had those feelings about boys, and my father didn't have to tell me to like girls. Anecdotal, I know.... but I never had to choose."
You must have led a sheltered life. Are you saying that for 12 years (9 realistically) you never watched TV? You never talked to other school kids? You never heard you mom and dad talk mushy to each other?
Is this how you rationalize that you were born that way? Because after 12 years of isolation you suddenly realized you liked women? There are a lot of liberal scientists who pray you will enter their clinic today just so you can be the proof--the missing link, that humans are born with a sexual predetermination.
AA,
I really don't think it matters one way or another. It seems that people with agendas can find some study to support their assertions, for or against either being born gay or straight, either learned through environment by gay parenting or some other some such exhaustive research to get to the bottom of this whole gay thing.....it's back and forth, unsettled and never ending.
The bottom line is respect. People can choose to dislike any lifestyle they want too; they can tolerate, or not, whatever they feel like; they can have any feelings and opinions that coincide with their religious beliefs or their moral standards. It is still about respect. People should be judged by their character, straights and gays and transgenders and bisexuals and everyone......children should be placed in homes with adults who are judged by the same standards regardless of the prospective parent's sexual orientation.
We can have any feelings we want, but it is the decent thing to do to treat people with dignity and respect.
Tommy, I completely agree, though I will add one minor point.
If homosexual couples influence their children to become more homosexual, then don't heterosexuals do the opposite? It seems only logical that it would, yet real-world experience has told me that that is not the case. I mean, if homosexuals breed homosexuals, then wouldn't Dick Cheney then have to have some latent homosexuality? Or perhaps it's Lynn Cheney instead? (No dig at the Cheney's, they're just a high profile couple with a lesbian daughter.)
Also, it has been said that parents with homosexual tendencies provide undue stress on the children. I'd provide that it's broken families that provide that undue stress. Single parent households and couples who share custody of children often have little to no time to spend with the child, or use the child as leverage in some sort of power struggle. I'd put forth that children who grow up in the household of a loving couple, whether it be man and woman, two men, or two women, receive the nurturing and desired attention needed to grow. It'd be interesting to see a study on the effects of the children on these different pairs (there hasn't been one yet.)
I don't deny that the optimum environment for raising a child is with a mother and a father. Each brings a unique perspective.
However, that in no way diminishes the effectiveness of two gay parents, or one parent if the situation warrants. Not every child grows up in the optimum environment so other alternatives must be available for that child's well being.
As I said, prospective adoptive parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, need to be evaluated and judged by the same standards that benefit the child in a loving, nurturing and healthy household.
Or perhaps it's Lynn Cheney instead? (No dig at the Cheney's, they're just a high profile couple with a lesbian daughter.)
Lynne Cheney did write a lesbian novel called Sisters. It's been posted on line, since it is long out of print. It's Googlable (is that a word?)
It's Googlable (is that a word?)
It is now.... :-)
"Oh, and btw, your ice cream analogy completely falls flat. If someone likes vanilla their whole life (let's assume vanilla means other men) and someone introduces him to chocolate (women) and he likes that too, then he still likes vanilla. That really has no relation to human sexuality."
Actually, it fits exactly. Gays will switch back and forth liking who and what they like often. Sometimes liking both. But, that was a good try.
Gays will switch back and forth liking who and what they like often.
Actually, Phil, it's been proven that gays in committed relationships stay with their partners far longer on average that fundamentalist Christian churchgoers. I'll see if I can find a link that backs that up for you, just in case you'd be interestetd in actually reading something truthful for a change....
Here's part of the story, Phil. It's a link to a story about a study that shows that evangelical Christians have a higher divorce rate than any other religious group - and far higher than athiests and agnostics.
(BTW, the site the link goes to is called "Religious Tolerance". We'd all be a lot better off if you could practive a bit of that....)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
"Actually, Phil, it's been proven that gays in committed relationships stay with their partners far longer on average that fundamentalist Christian churchgoers."
Nice link. However, I do not understand where they got the "born again" Christians from. How many Christians have you met who admit to being "born again"? I know 3. Do you even know what that means?
Anyway, that was beside the point. You are comparing apples to oranges. You claim "gays in committed relationships" stay in relationships longer than "fundamentalist Christian". How does the comparison work when you factor in "fundamentalist Christians in committed relationships" compared to "gays in committed relationships"? Oh, you don't HAVE that data? Go figure. Maybe you would be kind enough to give data on "gays" and "Christians" and see where that takes us. Leave the "committed relationship" out of the equation. Well, either out of or in for both comparisons. But, you can't use it for one and not the other.
Is it true that you'll be teaching a few classes at MIT next fall?
I'm gay and I love the puffy cheetos!
orkin, considering you didn't do so well trying to argue that the universe is created by ONE rock, I don't think your doing yourself any favors by complaining of someones 2-rock theory. You might want to reconsider constantly bringing this issue up. After all, YOU are the one who had that thread censored. Is it in your best interest to have people reminded of that fact?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310003?f=s_search#comments_bottom_nav
You've never read about the "Baskin-Robbins fossils?"
There were 31 of them, right? and a "Fossil Of The Month"??? :-)
I thought one argument against same-sex parenting was interesting. The argument goes that (all things being equal,) both a father and a mother are necessary for optimal child rearing. Single parent children are at greater risk for a number of consequences when the father is not present.
Clicking on the link provided above, I found the following statistics at
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/samesexparenting.htmDaughters of single parents are:
Assuming these statistics are accurate the question that needs to be asked is if it is better for the adopted child to have a mother and father than a mother and a partner or a father and a partner? Does having a same sex female partner for the mother replace the psychological benefits provided by a father? I think that is an interesting question. Does anyone have an answer for that? I know I don't. I don't think these statistics provide the answer.
However, if having a father and mother is optimal for childrearing, do we as a society want to entrust children, who for one reason or another do not have parents who can raise them, to a less than optimum parental environment by allowing homosexual adoption?
Maybe we should. I know of a gay couple who are responsible, loving, giving people. So to me the issue is not whether they are loving, but a broader issue over where society sets boundaries. Do we want the two-sex parenthood model, which is the natural order, and the one that has existed pretty much up till now, to now be modified to include same-sex parenting? Although it's not preferred, maybe it's time.
Sounds like a gay male couple with children would be PERFECT then. 2 Dads. All the issues should go away.
Again, I'm always weary of statistics provided by religious groups, since they are not independent, and not un-biased in the least. They are looking for immediate justification for their already pre-conceived notions before they actually have data and actual scientifically and peer reviewed studies in front of them. Statistics are not the same as studies once again. They can point you in the direction, but one needs to dig deeper no doubt, and again, religious institutions tend to ignore actual real peer review work, because it would probably totally destroy their viewpoints.
Mags wrote: religious institutions tend to ignore actual real peer review work, because it would probably totally destroy their viewpoints.
me: Do you have any studies to back up your assertion?
"Maybe we should. I know of a gay couple who are responsible, loving, giving people. So to me the issue is not whether they are loving, but a broader issue over where society sets boundaries. Do we want the two-sex parenthood model, which is the natural order, and the one that has existed pretty much up till now, to now be modified to include same-sex parenting? Although it's not preferred, maybe it's time."
Actually AA, the two-sex parenthood model has not been the only model up until now to exist. Many other cultures used socio-group parenting, in which the village is responsible for raising the child, not just the parents. In a lot of cases, males took little to no responsibility for their own children, but assisted in bringing up the children of the village as a whole. This was more typical among Native Americans and African nations in which tribal culture was dominant. Think of it in terms of a wolf-pack. Male wolves take the responsibility upon themselves to care for all the wolf cubs, not just the ones they fathered.
What's interesting to note is that we see homosexual behavior in all sorts of animals, from Penguins to rhesus monkeys. Yet somehow, anti-gay advocates claim homosexuality is un-natural.
Stupid Happy Feet movie. Just more gay lifestyle propaganda trying to change our children horrible homosexuals... (sarcasm off).
Just re-hashing an argument I think I've heard from some people before about the penguin movie from last year.
DB,
Small points of contention from my perspective.
I'm not so sure of your point about Native Americans. I think it has to do with hunter-gatherer societies and there were undoubtedly many variations within those tribes. Since we are not that type of society I don't think the analogy holds.
You may be correct about wolves, but I would also argue that it is not a good argument to depend on other species to support your contentions.
I was just challenging your assertion that the two-parent model has been the norm up until now, I did not seek to show that that model applies to today.
That being said, there aren't really any studies to conclude that homosexual couples who rear children, especially adopted children, are hurting the child in any way, mostly because gay adoption had been off the table for so long, and not enough time has passed to gather a large enough sample to study.
This study, whatever the bona fides or agenda of its source, seems kinda off-point.
Nerzog,
A bit off topic, but I thanks for making it again. :-)
Notably absent was the term "relatively" poor which was the point I made originally. I thought that was easily understood. I was mistaken.
This is from Census Baloney Robert Rector
What's worse, the way the Census presents its data—and the way the press reports it—makes it sound as though the poor are mired in Dickensian poverty. But if you look closely, most Americans "living in poverty"—the Census's poverty threshold for a family of four was $16,404 in 1997—aren't poor in any conventional sense all. About 40 percent of "poor" households own homes, 70 percent own cars, 97 percent own color televisions, 75 percent own video cassette recorders, two-thirds have air conditioning, and so on. Most "poor" kids today are super-nourished, growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the soldiers who stormed Normandy in World War II. And as economist Thomas Sowell has recently noted, few of the poor stay poor for long in America's dynamic, open economy: only 3 percent of the Census's bottom quintile remain there for more than eight years.
While real hardship still occurs in the U.S., the vast majority of the poor live in material conditions that would have been considered comfortable, or even well off, just a few generations ago. If the rich are getting richer in America, so is everyone else.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_sndgs03.htmlAA likes to have fun with statistics, like the one showing that most poor people in the U.S. currently have air conditioners, which were considered a luxury item.... 35 years ago. Thus proving that poor people in the U.S. aren't really poor.
That stupid idiot Thomas Sowell has been making that argument for years. And he's still just as stupid.
I was a bit stressed for time but I agree that the statistics are about one parent homes, mainly those headed by women, and their offspring. One has to wonder what other factors cause the problems of single-mother households. Obviously a missing father figure puts the child at greater risk.
I think the question is, and those statistics do not answer; Do children of gay parenting have the same propensity for behavioral problems as those raised by single moms. A related question I have is having a gay couple adopting a child as good for the child as a two-sex couple or is the two-sex couple the preferred arrangement? (I think gay parents are better than no parents.)
Lots of unanswered questions for me. I'd like to know what percentage of adoptive straight parents stay together while their adopted children are under-age vs adoptive gay parents? Approximately how many gay couples want to adopt? How do the physical, psychological, and societal problems gays themselves deal with have on their ability to raise children. That being said, I do believe gays can adopt children in many States.
I understand that much of the anti-gay adoption battle is based on many religious peoples feeling that the gay lifestyle is immoral. I also understand that many people feel it is not.
Even if many people argue that homosexuality is immoral, it is not illegal in the United States. That being said, I'm not so sure that gays raising adopted children can or should be prohibited.
Actually, I think Rudov is correct when he points out that liberals are hypocrits for using the terms queer and homo to insult other people. Doesn't surprise me though. I have known all along about the hypocrisy of liberals.
"I have known all along about the hypocrisy of liberals."
I guess liberals have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's not like any rightwingers have ever been caught being hypocritical. You know like Limbaugh being a drug addict, or Foley and Craig being against gay rights while doing the backdoor boogie.
"No, I think Coulter is honest and speaks her mind. She isn't afraid of what other's think. I think I like that about her most."
She sure isn't afraid of what other people think. Especially you, since she will say one thing, then turn right around and do something that totally contradicts the original statement.
If you think Coulter is honest and doesn't concern herself with the opinions of others you really are easily fooled. Coulter calculates what she says to achieve controversy and reaction. She will always find the harshest and most insulting way to say something because that is her schtick. Her biggest fear is that people stop noticing her. This is not a person who is dismissive of public opinion, it is her lifeblood. Being a negative attention seeker is still being an attention seeker.
Lots of these airbags claim they don't care what others think, but the truth is that they live for it. They crave the worship of their fans and are thrilled by the scorn of their opposition. The worst thing that could happen to them is to be ignored.
I was only pointing out what Marc Rudov said in his last comment of the interview. The fact that far left liberals pretend to be all for mainstreaming the gay lifestyle, yet they use the terms "gay" and "queer" as deragatory comments. It makes you wonder whether they support the gay lifestyle at all. Or, if they have a hidden agenda. I think he has a point.
The fact that far left liberals pretend to be all for mainstreaming the gay lifestyle, yet they use the terms "gay" and "queer" as deragatory comments.
If it's a "fact" then you will have no problem documenting it. Who (and don't be afraid to name names, so it can be verified) specifically has done this? This is not the first time you have been asked, nor do I believe it will be the last time you will attempt to evade answering the question.
You know what's funny, many of those "far left liberals" who do use those derogatory comments are gay themselves, like Jim David.
Technically the so called man is NOT A MAN. This was a transvestite who grew as a female later decided to act as a man (has a penis and a vagina intact). This He-She kept all the biological reproductive organs and decided to act like a man. Why are liberals calling this person a man? Boys who grow in to men don't have the reproductive organs.
This is a collasal joke! I can't imagine how this poor child is going to go to school and be mocked, bullied and laughed at because his/her selfish self-centered woman-man parent decided to have a child. This is not being selfless.
This He-SHE's wife has children already so having a child is nothing but a publicity stunt. Oprah is another nut who want's to increase ratings on television.
why is america gay-bashing still??
accept the fact:some men like men, some women like women. it's not wrong, it's not evil and where is your freedom??? freedom to love who you want to??obv it's been lost, along with your freedom to elect your president.