Teaching Gay History in California

Jul 9, 2011 Full story: EDGE 12,515

California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

Full Story

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12881 Jan 14, 2013
The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[38][40](Wiki)
Samatha

Dallas, TX

#12883 Jan 14, 2013
Did they also oppose the FDA?

>
FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns

>

WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.

This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.

According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.

The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blo...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[38][40](Wiki)

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12884 Jan 14, 2013
79%? That's a LOT of AIDS being spread. Tell me, do these guys die off or just stick around for years spreading it?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12885 Jan 14, 2013
Information about sexually transmitted diseases demonstrates the importance of encourage committed relationships through marriage equality for gay couples.

It also demonstrates the need for better education about prevention.

Having unprotected and high risk sex with multiple partners places one at risk for HIV, not anal or vaginal sex. Both anal and vaginal sex are high risk for contracting any disease including HIV if, but only if having sex with an infected partner.

Any person can contract any transmittable disease, but only if exposed in a way that allows transmission, and only when the virus or agent is present. Sex does not cause disease. Two uninfected people can have anal or vaginal sex as much as is humanly possible without transmitting any disease if neither partner has any.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12886 Jan 14, 2013
Any person can transmit any transmittable disease if they are infected. Any person can become infected if exposed to an infectious agent in a way that allows transmission of that infectious agent. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. After screening out those who have had any recent high risk for exposure, all blood is tested. Testing can now identify any infections that might get through the risk screening.

Continuing a policy that no longer has any scientific justification is not about protecting the blood supply. The only remaining purpose is to indulge and perpetuate irrational prejudice.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12887 Jan 14, 2013
All people donating blood should be screened for recent high risk behavior, as this is where the risk of disease transmission lies.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12888 Jan 14, 2013
The high rate of HIV transmission in the male half of the gay population is often used to demonize all gay people, and justify legal discrimination. Yet it fails to take into account that most gay men do not have HIV, and gay women are the lowest population affected. Straight people are also affected.

The primary purpose of promoting such information is to perpetuate irrational prejudice and justify further discrimination, causing even more harm and suffering, when it should be used to promote better education and equal treatment under the law.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12889 Jan 14, 2013
When asked: Did you see any value in having both a mother and a father?
Jerald wrote:
Sure. So what?
He's got his and doesn't care if more children are denied the value of having a mother and father.

.
Jerald wrote:
My personal situation isn't the same for all.
Nobodies personal situation is the same for all but every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either motherless or fatherless.

.
Jerald wrote:
Not all opposite-sex parents are good parents. And many same-sex parents are excellent ones.
Apples and oranges; you can't compare good same sex couples with bad mother/father couples. Do you want me to start posting stories about homosexuals abusing children? Would that convince you your argument is irrelevant and harmful to human dignity?

.
Jerald wrote:
Perhaps the greater "value" was that I had TWO parents, not parents of the opposite sex.
But you admit the value of having both a mother and a father to show you how gender roles operate in our culture and how to get along. Do you really want more children ignorant and dysfunctional?

.
Jerald wrote:
...This is a completely bogus and meaningless claim. How are parental rights "disenfranchised" simply by allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage?
in divorce when a spouse marries he might petition for custody based on the ability to provide a two parent home; the divorced spouse is disenfranchised of parental rights based on court decree. When courts start finding in favor of a mascot victim group to make up for past discrimination; that's only going to harm more children.
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12890 Jan 14, 2013
Affirming love, avoiding AIDS

Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:40 EST
Comments (11)
Tags: aids, homosexuality



June 25, 2012 - It was a distressing report from the Center for Disease Control — a May 2012 update on HIV and AIDS among gay and bisexual men. The report details the degree of HIV/AIDS infection in the population of men who have sex with men (MSM).

Here are some of the sobering figures: Though they make up only 2 percent of the U.S. population, in 2009 MSM accounted for 61 percent of all new HIV infections in the United States and 79 percent of all infections among newly infected men. In 2010, this rate of diagnosis among MSM remained unchanged at 61 percent and 78 percent respectively.

By the end of 2009 there were an estimated 784,701 persons in the United States living with an HIV diagnosis and 61 percent of these were MSM. Similarly, 61 percent of AIDS diagnoses were among MSM. From 2006-09 infection rates of young men increased 34 percent. Nearly half of infections are in white males, while 30 percent are black/African American, and 19 percent are Hispanic. By the end of 2009, nearly 300,000 MSM had died from AIDS.

In the United States, 2 percent of the population — those who engage in homosexual acts — account for 79% percent of all new HIV infections; 19 percent of this population is infected with HIV. This is truly startling and demands our attention. It is God’s words to Cain after he killed Abel that come to mind —“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”

In other words, chastity, abstinence and genuine friendship are essential. Somewhat surprisingly, the CDC report doesn’t entirely disagree with this, as it states that HIV is caused by the kind of behavior engaged in by homosexual men, and while condom use is recommended, the CDC goes so far as to warn against the riskiest acts stating that avoiding them are “the most effective ways to prevent HIV.”

Unfortunately the response of the federal government has not emphasized abstinence and chastity. The projected 2012 budget allocated 21.5 billion dollars to HIV/AIDS in the United States. Of that, only 1 billion is directed toward prevention. A survey of the organizations that receive these monies indicates that little if any funds are slotted for abstinence education. It is, quite simply, not a part of the federal government’s response to the crisis.

Favored is an approach that stresses “risk reduction” including condoms, counseling and testing rather than encouraging primary behavioral changes. The assumption seems to be that asking one to change his sexual behavior is unrealistic, and asks too much.

This is disastrously bad policy. As Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala noted in their book Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West,“From a purely pragmatic point of view, there remain large and serious concerns about the practical impact and efficacy of risk reduction strategies.”

An authentic response to the HIV/AIDS crisis is neither discrimination nor enabling silence. We owe love that recognizes the dignity of the human person, respects the sexual act as God intended it and considers first the well-being of the other. A proper vision of sexuality must be encouraged and true friendship and compassion offered to those infected and those who struggle with deep-seated homosexual inclination.

This crisis begs for commitment to the moral law, respect for the inherent dignity of the person, and a greater recognition that each person is capable of choosing behavior that is both good for him and that allows for his flourishing.
Joe Balls wrote:
79%? That's a LOT of AIDS being spread. Tell me, do these guys die off or just stick around for years spreading it?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12892 Jan 14, 2013
Many homosexuals defend marriage:

Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.

He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.

"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#12891 Jan 14, 2013
Jerald wrote:
If that's the sole reason why marriage was created, why can infertile or elderly couples marry?
Elderly and infertile couples can give a child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father. You've admitted the value of having a mother and father; why would you deny that value to other children now?

.
Jerald wrote:
What's the legitimate governmental reason for that?
How would the government determine infertility or set an age limit when medical improvements change the bounds every day? How would you protect reproductive privacy with your regulation of reproduction? Posterity is a benefit from marriage; not a requirement for marriage.

The government issues drivers licenses to all qualified applicants; they don't decide based on the intent to own or operate a vehicle. Having access to a vehicle isn't a requirement for a drivers license just as fertility or the intent to reproduce isn't a requirement for marriage.

.
Jerald wrote:
Or perhaps it's NOT the only reason "marriage was created."
It's not the only reason but the next generation of taxpayers is the greatest benefit marriage provides our society.

.
Jerald wrote:
In any event, who cares why "marriage was created" in some distant past?
Tradition. Conservatives want to preserve our social institutions. If you're a conservative; keep marriage male/female.

.
Jerald wrote:
The point is what purpose marriage serves NOW.
The point is; the left wants to destroy marriage and make people dependent on government instead of their families.

If you love individual freedom; keep marriage one man and one woman.

.
Jerald wrote:
And it's clear that civil marriage benefits the partners, any children they may raise, and society in general.
Civil marriage does that, regardless of the sex of the partners....
Some radical social change causes more harm than good. The welfare state is the way America works NOW; why not just keep spending more money until our economy is like Greece?

.
Jerald wrote:
Fine. Feel free to provide evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse on any objective measure of outcomes compared to children raised by opposite-sex couples.
Children raised by a husband and wife have a mother and father; you've admitted there is value to having a mom and dad.

.
Jerald wrote:
That's just a flat-out mischaracterization of what happened when Catholic Charities refused to abide by state law when it was taking taxpayer money. It chose to "go out of business" rather than take state money and place children in good homes....
Not a "mischaracterization ", thanks to same sex marriage supporters the law changed and they were driven out of the market by new regulation.

If you believe in religious freedom; keep marriage as husband and wife.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12894 Jan 14, 2013
Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from efforts to change it. Not only have such efforts shown efforts to change orientation are not successful, but that they are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior including suicide.

"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."

Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others' sexual orientation.

Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says [American Psychological Association]

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12895 Jan 14, 2013
"The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness."

Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth [APP]
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12897 Jan 14, 2013
'Gay' gene: Fact or fantasy?

Perhaps the greatest defense for the acceptance of homosexuality is the so-called “gay” gene. While it may not be easy to “come out” of homosexuality, there is credible and substantial evidence disproving the “gay”-gene theory.

The first question is, does the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice, or not, really matter? The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual-activist group, doesn’t think so.“The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable,” a spokesman said.“But in the final analysis, it really shouldn’t matter.”

Whether the sincerity of that statement is valid or not, the simple fact is that whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or not does matter. If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then the lifestyle and act must be accepted by everyone, because it cannot be prevented. However, if it is a choice, then anyone has the right to label homosexuality unacceptable and immoral.

The scientific basis the homosexual community uses to prove the “gay”-gene theory are two different studies conducted in 1993 and 1995. The studies found a specific marker in the X chromosome that links to homosexuality in men.

In 1993, biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute found that in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 of them had the same set of DNA sequences in a part of the chromosome called,“Xq28.”

This has caused many homosexual leaders to proclaim this “evidence” and demand respect and acceptance of homosexuality because of this apparent genetic trait.

However, in late June of 1995, reports were confirmed that Dean Hamer was being investigated by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services. Reports found that Hamer may have selectively reported his research and data – which has led many to question the credibility of his research.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Ironically, much of the research showing orientation is not a choice, comes from efforts to change it. Not only have such efforts shown efforts to change orientation are not successful, but that they are often harmful to the point of self destructive behavior including suicide.
"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. "Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."
Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others' sexual orientation.
Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says [American Psychological Association]
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12898 Jan 14, 2013
Furthermore, in the late ’90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the “gay” gene in homosexual men. The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as “Xq28? has nothing to do with the sexual “orientation” of a person.

Neurologist George Rice studied the DNA of 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might happen from sheer chance.

Despite the debunking of evidence to back the “gay”-gene theory, homosexual advocates continue to use the out-dated evidence to promote the existence of a homosexual genetic trait.

Much more evidence can be provided. Identical twins, for instance, share the same set of chromosomal patterns. Therefore, if one twin’s DNA has a homosexual genetic trait, then it is inevitable that both twins will be homosexuals. However, that is not the case with all twins. When one twin is homosexual, the probability of the other identical twin being homosexual is 50 percent. Thus, the “gay”-gene theory is, once again, debunked by using logical, scientific research.

Still, there is even more evidence against homosexual genes. If homosexuality is, indeed – despite other evidence – a genetic trait, that gene would eventually be ousted from the gene pool because homosexuals tend not to reproduce. Instead, homosexuality has appeared in civilizations across time. In some parts of the world, homosexuality flourishes, but in other parts of the world, homosexuality is not present.

Additionally, if “gay”-gene theory were true, it would be next to impossible to change the lifestyle to heterosexuality. However, it is not impossible to change sexual orientations – Stephen Bennett is a great example, and so are the thousands of others who have come out of homosexuality.

With this incredible load of evidence mounting up against the “gay”-gene theory, it would be safe to say that homosexuality is actually not something one is born with, but a choice.

Instead of using hard evidence and facts, the homosexual community has stooped so low as to use media to force feed this unproven theory as fact in order to advance their agenda.

Editor’s note: The July issue of WND’s popular monthly print magazine, Whistleblower, is a groundbreaking look at the issue of homosexuality in America. Subscribe to Whistleblower at WND’s online store, ShopNetDaily.
Worm

Miami, FL

#12899 Jan 14, 2013
What are you saying? It is a mental disorder or it isn't?

Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.
Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one’s sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure.
Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness."
Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth [APP]

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12900 Jan 14, 2013
He's not saying anything, he "borrowed" his outdated BS from World Nut Daily.
Worm wrote:
What are you saying? It is a mental disorder or it isn't?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FsglDXW34yoXX
<quoted text>

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12901 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
...nonsense snipped...But you admit the value of having both a mother and a father to show you how gender roles operate in our culture and how to get along. Do you really want more children ignorant and dysfunctional?
Feel free to show where I "admitted" the "value of a mother and father to show me how gender roles operate in our culture and how to get along."

You inferred that. I never stated that.

I acknowledge that having TWO parents was beneficial for me. I advocate giving children the opportunity to have two parents wherever it's possible.

Denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage won't advance that interest at all; indeed, it will deny children the opportunity to be raised in homes protected by the benefits of civil marriage.

Why would any rational person want to do that?
Brian_G wrote:
in divorce when a spouse marries he might petition for custody based on the ability to provide a two parent home; the divorced spouse is disenfranchised of parental rights based on court decree. When courts start finding in favor of a mascot victim group to make up for past discrimination; that's only going to harm more children.
What a load of crap.

You claim a problem with custody law; you clearly demonstrate your anti-gay bias with "mascot victim group."

You don't like gay and lesbian people. Got it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12902 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Elderly and infertile couples can give a child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father. You've admitted the value of having a mother and father; why would you deny that value to other children now?
I never "admitted" that at all. You dreamed that up.

Same-sex couples can give a child what it may not have -- TWO loving parents.
Brian_G wrote:
How would the government determine infertility or set an age limit when medical improvements change the bounds every day? How would you protect reproductive privacy with your regulation of reproduction? Posterity is a benefit from marriage; not a requirement for marriage.
The government issues drivers licenses to all qualified applicants; they don't decide based on the intent to own or operate a vehicle. Having access to a vehicle isn't a requirement for a drivers license just as fertility or the intent to reproduce isn't a requirement for marriage.
My "regulation of reproduction"?

Sorry, Brian, but I never said that. Everything you've presented here can be used as argument against denying civil marriage because of sex. But clearly, you don't see that.
Brian_G wrote:
It's not the only reason but the next generation of taxpayers is the greatest benefit marriage provides our society.
So there ARE other reasons for civil marriage other than procreation.

Thank you for at least acknowledging the obvious.

There is no justification for denying civil marriage based on sex, since the sex of the partners has absolutely no bearing on the success of the marriage.

And same-sex couples CAN AND DO raise children who will be part of that next generation. So there's that fact.

Why do anti-gay people like you focus only on an ability or willingness to BEAR children and not on the ability or willingness to raise children?

Isn't that just as important?
Brian_G wrote:
Tradition. Conservatives want to preserve our social institutions. If you're a conservative; keep marriage male/female.
Always the worst reason to maintain any form of discriminatory practice: because it's always been done that way.

It begs the question -- why do it that way?
Brian_G wrote:
The point is; the left wants to destroy marriage and make people dependent on government instead of their families.
Destroy marriage by advocating for more marriages? Make people dependent on government over families by creating families?

That makes no sense. Except to conservative nuts.
Brian_G wrote:
Some radical social change causes more harm than good. The welfare state is the way America works NOW; why not just keep spending more money until our economy is like Greece?
Non sequitur.

Provide empirical evidence of the harm that allowing same-sex couples to marry would cause.
Brian_G wrote:
Children raised by a husband and wife have a mother and father; you've admitted there is value to having a mom and dad.
You keep attributing to me something that you said.

The evidence demonstrates that the number of parents, not their gender, is the important variable in raising children.

You haven't been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Brian_G wrote:
Not a "mischaracterization ",...
OK, not a mischaracterization. It was a lie.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12903 Jan 14, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
He's not saying anything, he "borrowed" his outdated BS from World Nut Daily.
<quoted text>
As a point of clarification, the info I posted stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be cured, is supported by every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the country. Not sure what "Worm" posted, but it appears to be the Nut Daily stuff.

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 10 min Frankie Rizzo 3,822
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 30 min Pro Ukraine 2,723
Looking A Girl/Women for Friendship and more...... 1 hr ahmad143 4
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) 1 hr big Tool 1,490
lookin for top jeddah (Jul '10) 1 hr Handsome gay 1,302
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 1 hr NorCal Native 649
In The Hospital, There's No Such Thing As A Les... 4 hr Chance 15

Transgender People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE