Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36053 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#19101 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't have near the issue if that were the claim.
Keeping in mind that there are NO studies regarding gay couples, just lesbian...
The claim is that lesbian couples parent better than not just default hetero couples (adoptive, step, foster), but better than natural parents.
It's a double whammy of stupidity.
~Duplicate gender default parents top diverse gender default parents.
~And duplicate gender default parents top natural parents!
How do you explain that???
Smirk smile.
You have taken the leap from SS couples do "as well" to SS couples do far better.

I'ts easier for you to promote your bias if you stretch the truth.

THAT'S how I explain that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19102 Aug 3, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
You have taken the leap from SS couples do "as well" to SS couples do far better.
I'ts easier for you to promote your bias if you stretch the truth.
THAT'S how I explain that.
Sorry, no stretch.

That's the claim.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19105 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion stands.
No it doesn't Smirky.

What about the following?

Here's what a researcher said:
"Because of the situation that same-sex families find themselves in, they are generally more willing to communicate and approach the issues that any child may face at school, like teasing, bullying, overt homophobia and rejection. This fosters openness and means children tend to be more resilient. That would be our hypothesis."

http://perezhilton.com/perezitos/2013-06-08-c ...

Worried about children growing up with gay parents? Well, stop. These kids are alright.
That's according to the initial findings of a new study from Melbourne University in Australia that found kids of same-sex couples are on average even healthier and more adjusted than kids of straight couples.
The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, called the world's largest study of its kind, drew upon health data from over 500 children aged 5-17 and 315 gay, lesbian and bisexual parents. An interim report of the study's findings was released this week.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/ ...

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-g ...

WASHINGTON — During last week's Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that "there's considerable disagreement" among experts over whether "raising a child in a single-sex family is harmful or not." Two other justices agreed that gay parenting was a new and uncertain development.

Those comments startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/05/natio ...

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051 ...

"All these arguments, evidences and data can be pulled together into the conclusion that children’s nature does not require heterosexual parental guidance and children do not have to be raised by straight parents."

http://www.academia.edu/2029488/Homosexual_Pa ...

Sorry SMIRKY, most experts disagree with your worthless opinion.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19106 Aug 3, 2013
You wouldn't guess from the current "expert" position on homosexual child-rearing that the data are in any doubt. Two years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics put its imprimatur on the stance adopted by the American Psychiatric Association in 2000. An article in Pediatrics pronounced that "a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

But behind the scenes, skeptics have emerged—and from an unexpected quarter. It's hardly startling to find conservative family-values crusaders and opponents of gay marriage balking at the verdict and challenging the validity of several decades' worth of data. As one of the most sober of them, Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, wrote in an affidavit in last year's Ontario Superior Court gay marriage case, "not a single one of those studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." What's jarring is to hear champions of family diversity and gay marriage chiming in. Who would have predicted this camp would come up with the most incisive critique of the claim that research has proved there are no differences between kids raised by gay and straight parents?

Whenever advocates shoot down findings that work in their favor, the result carries extra credibility. In this case it helps, too, that the professor stepping forth to do so, Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists. Stacey's stringent assessment of 21 of the better studies on gay child-rearing, in an article titled "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" cut through the ideological static that such a charged area of research almost inevitably generates.(Co-authored with Timothy J. Biblarz, it appeared in the American Sociological Review in 2001.)

Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny." She focused in on the difficulties that have stymied good, systematic work. For starters, when the first small studies comparing children of hetero- and homosexual parents came out in the late 1970s, it was impossible to obtain representative samples—and it still is. After all, nobody really knows how big the population of homosexual-headed families with kids is or what it looks like.(The general demographic profile of such households is only beginning to emerge. Data from the 1990 Census suggested that 27 percent of lesbians in same-sex couples had given birth to children; between 5 percent and 17 percent of gay male households included kids. Estimates of the number of kids of gay and lesbian parents range from 6 million to 10 million, according to a group called COLAGE, or Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere.) Partly because researchers are dealing with subjects who have not exactly clamored to be counted and measured, samples have been small and anything but random—they consist of adults and children who get referred or recruited. The resulting data have been heavily slanted to well-educated white families and overwhelmingly to lesbian parents rather than gay men with kids.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19107 Aug 3, 2013
The problems don't stop there. A chunk of the gay-parenting literature dates to the 1980s, when researchers drew mostly on children born in heterosexual marriages that dissolved before or after a parent came out.(It was a decade during which studies of divorced- and single-parent families in general multiplied.) With this "transitional generation," it's impossible to disentangle the effects of parents' sexual orientation from those of divorce, of the revelation of homosexuality, and of re-partnering. And whatever impact social stigma had then, it's surely changed somewhat now that same-sex parenthood is more visible.

Finding suitable control groups is tricky, too. In the past, children of divorced single mothers have often served as the point of comparison, even though once-married lesbian mothers are more likely than their heterosexual peers to be living with new partners. Only in the 1990s have some (small) studies matched up children of homosexual and heterosexual donor-insemination couples. Given the limitations of such shaky cross-sectional research, longitudinal studies would be very useful—especially since there's so much interest in developmental issues, including the evolution of kids' gender identities and sexual orientations when they grow up with gay parents. Almost nobody, however, has tracked gay and lesbian families over time.

But Stacey's boldest move is to challenge not just the methodology but the fundamental assumption that has informed the bulk of gay parenting studies: the idea that it would be damning to discover that kids of gay parents deviated in any way from kids growing up with moms and dads. As other critics have pointed out, the defensive goal of proving sameness is almost a guarantee of weak science.(The hypothesis that both groups of kids are alike is hard to rule out, but that doesn't mean you've established that there are no differences.) That "heterosexist" bias, Stacey argues, has also encouraged researchers to fudge results, anxiously claiming homogeneity where there's actually some variety. Why, she asks, buy into the view that "differences indicate deficits"?

Her question is a good one to guide future work. But right now, it seems to be inspiring yet more dubious science, as the admittedly weak evidence is now sifted for indications that gay parents and their kids do in fact diverge from heterosexual families—and in advantageous ways. Dip into a recent book called The Gay Baby Boom, by Suzanne M. Johnson and Elizabeth O'Connor, and you'll find the muddled data often summoned as proof of the distinctiveness of gay child-rearing, rather than its equivalence to the heterosexual version. Out comes a portrait of egalitarian, consistent, harmonious, and "authoritative" (warm but not lax) lesbian co-parenting that moms and dads might learn from.(Dads, it seems, tend to lag on parenting skills tests.)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19108 Aug 3, 2013
Digging around in the existing data on kids of gay parents leads the authors and others to similarly rosy speculations that these children are unusually open-minded. Some studies, for example, show boys playing less aggressively and behaving more "chastely" as youths, while girls' early interests are more androgynous and their adolescence evidently somewhat more sexually adventurous. On the hot topic of sexual orientation, the only long-term study of lesbian-headed families reports 64 percent of the young adult children saying they've considered same-sex relationships (compared to 17 percent with heterosexual parents)—although there is no statistical difference between the number in both groups who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.*

http://www.slate.com/articles
/life/sandbox/2004/03/the_gay_ science.2.html

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#19109 Aug 3, 2013
What's your point, KiMare? The reality is, children are raised in all kinds of families, and in spite of what you may think, the "traditional" nuclear family (where kids are raised almost exclusively by Mom and Dad) is hardly traditional.

Before the Industrial Revolution, for most of human history,(and in most parts of the world today) children had been raised in multi-generational families and enjoyed the benefits of receiving guidance from many adults. One significant benefit is that the presence of other adults in the household helps to offset the effects of parental favoritism, which occurs in 70-90% of families with heterosexual parents (No similar studies have been done for gay and lesbian parents)and has lasting negative consequences for both the favored and unfavored child(ren).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19110 Aug 3, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
What's your point, KiMare? The reality is, children are raised in all kinds of families, and in spite of what you may think, the "traditional" nuclear family (where kids are raised almost exclusively by Mom and Dad) is hardly traditional.
Before the Industrial Revolution, for most of human history,(and in most parts of the world today) children had been raised in multi-generational families and enjoyed the benefits of receiving guidance from many adults. One significant benefit is that the presence of other adults in the household helps to offset the effects of parental favoritism, which occurs in 70-90% of families with heterosexual parents (No similar studies have been done for gay and lesbian parents)and has lasting negative consequences for both the favored and unfavored child(ren).
Gay twirl B/S.

Yes there was often extended family, still is. I grew up with six siblings in an Italian neighborhood where we were a small family. I'd take then anytime for what I see happening today.

But you know the point. Why is it necessary to lie and manufacture purported studies for a legitimate cause?

You throw God, marriage and children under the bus in a futile attempt for self acceptance.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#19111 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay twirl B/S.

You throw God, marriage and children under the bus in a futile attempt for self acceptance.
Drama Queen.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#19112 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
You throw God, marriage and children under the bus in a futile attempt for self acceptance.
Your god must be pretty small and weak if I'm capable of throwing it under a bus. But seriously, all that's just a load of homophobic poppycock. There is no proof that same-sex couples harm children's development, or the institution of marriage.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#19113 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't have near the issue if that were the claim.
Keeping in mind that there are NO studies regarding gay couples, just lesbian...
The claim is that lesbian couples parent better than not just default hetero couples (adoptive, step, foster), but better than natural parents.
It's a double whammy of stupidity.
~Duplicate gender default parents top diverse gender default parents.
~And duplicate gender default parents top natural parents!
How do you explain that???
Smirk smile.
Are not lesbians gay couples? That would be like saying there are no studies about big cats, just tigers.

Your logic is up the Khyber Pass, as usual.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19114 Aug 4, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Your god must be pretty small and weak if I'm capable of throwing it under a bus. But seriously, all that's just a load of homophobic poppycock. There is no proof that same-sex couples harm children's development, or the institution of marriage.
Oh, don't misunderstand me. You are only attempting to throw God. It has never worked before for any motivation.

The poppycock is the assertion that all types of default families immediately and significantly harm a child's outcome, EXCEPT FOR SS COUPLES MISSING ONE PARENT GENDER. They not only equal natural parents, they exceed natural parents. The new word for those kind of statements is 'Obamanation'.

The government has been involved in marriage two times before. Divorce and abortion. Both with devastating unintended consequences.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19115 Aug 4, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Are not lesbians gay couples? That would be like saying there are no studies about big cats, just tigers.
Your logic is up the Khyber Pass, as usual.
'Gay' usually refers to male homosexuals.

Honey, you keep proving the Biblical instruction that women should stay silent and ask their husbands at home. It's less embarrassing and not such a waste of people's time.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#19117 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
'Gay' usually refers to male homosexuals.
Only among the unintelligent.

Gay (adjective)
1 a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood>
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>
b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a : homosexual <gay men>
b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#19118 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'Gay' usually refers to male homosexuals.
Honey, you keep proving the Biblical instruction that women should stay silent and ask their husbands at home. It's less embarrassing and not such a waste of people's time.
The only thing embarrassing is your stupid gaffes, Kirschmann. Go back to Moses' time, so you can stone your daughter to death just for having a root.

The umpire called a 'no ball'.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#19120 Aug 4, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
[email protected], I don't think daughters are suppose to have roots!!!
You have mis-understood the Australian vernacular for "root". You should really attempt to be more worldly.

Root is a Australian colloquial derivative of rut.

Now, go look up "rut".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19121 Aug 4, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing embarrassing is your stupid gaffes, Kirschmann. Go back to Moses' time, so you can stone your daughter to death just for having a root.
The umpire called a 'no ball'.
The umpire is gay in all senses of the word.

"The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males"

Go ask a man.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#19122 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

"The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males"
Go ask a man.
I'm on you like stink on shit, KiMerde.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#19123 Aug 4, 2013
Gay Teacher Fired by Catholic School for Wedding Photos

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T86VKJ0C1...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#19124 Aug 4, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on you like stink on shit, KiMerde.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dRu6XFUSYq0XX
You may be stink, but I'm not sh/t.

That was a quote I posted.

You are dumb too.

Smile.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 8 min ToldYA 32,002
News When is it really time for couples therapy? 34 min Parden Pard 4
News Tories have 'come a long way' on gay rights, Th... 1 hr Marcavage s Trick 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Frindly 7,040
News Documentary explores drag scene in city of the ... Tue snowpale 2
News Alabama chief justice tells judges: Refuse gay ... (Feb '15) Mon ThomasA 40
News Anti-Gay Church Protests Brookfield 'Mega Church' (Jul '12) Jul 24 fuuny 21
More from around the web