I’m warry of female female couples. In single mother homes, kids latch to terrible role models. And poor childhood development has been linked to single mother households. Female female couples would imo far just as bad if not worse.
Of course children can latch to the proper role models, and it is possible. And it happens probably more often than not. But it is an issue right now that needs to be addressed with single mothers, I believe allowing lesbian couples free range will only compound the issue. Especially if manx’s statistics are true.
You are right about that but you can’t change the definition of a religious language completely just like that… there are still the historical religious who still follow how it has been written academically instead of “in modern day terms”. Why not avoid all areas? The only reason why it seems that the definition of marriage changed over time is because the majority of the world, especially the US is in majority Christian believers (whether current or former) which is why we think of it as something general. I
f you go buy some of the oldest dictionaries or encyclopedia’s that were not published with in the last decade you would see that Marriage was defined as “The union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. Based on the longest definition of Marriage, the “term Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron “Gay Union of man and woman”.
You may think that modern terminology is just as invalid as the older and much more longer terminology which is something we will disagree on. However, saying that they should change the name is not saying they should not be wedlocked, it’s just the best way is to give gay people something that is 100% their own therefore it doesn’t come out as sacrilegious.
It’s not just the Muslims, the Hindu’s of India don’t like it when you refer their wedlocks as “Hindu marriage” and the Christians in india don’t use Vivaah in reference to their weddings. Why are they against that if all of them equal out as the same thing, both male and female being legally united together? It’s because of the background behind the names they’ve given their ceremonies.
I do agree to disagree too… i just hope you and the rest don’t get the wrong idea, i was not speaking against gay’s having a wedlock, but they should have one that is 100% of their own.
We can argue about that if their is still a problem from the Christian community even if the name “Gay marriage” is changed.
10 pages in.
10 fucking pages in and I still havent seen anything meaningful past ad hominem.
And you guys claim I have by the book arguments when your leftist BS is by the book.
-Germany doesnt have same sex marriage, but unions that act the same as marriage since 2001.
1.) Your correct.
2.) No that is a gross misconception as well.
About 1 in 25 Caucasian people are carriers, meaning that they have one CFTR allele with a mutation and one “normal” CFTR allele. Carriers are unaffected because the normal allele codes for fully functioning CFTR protein, which compensates for the allele with a mutation. Only people who inherit two mutated CFTR alleles will develop cystic fibrosis or a related condition. CF occurs in about 1 in 3200 Caucasian newborns in the US. In the UK, CF affects 1 in 2500 people.
So in other words, although carrying Cystic Fibrosis just means you have 1 recessive allele for it and 1 dominant allele against it. You only get Cystic Fibrosis if you inherent both recessive alleles.
So although your correct about the far greater chance of not getting. The chance of actually inheriting it is pretty low to begin with.
Another thing to note is HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen). Mixed race doesnt imply more HLA diversity. You can have a admixed individual with a very limited set of these allotypes and an non-admixed individual who has many sets up to a maximum of 18 HLA for 9 loci. Ones that give resistance to regional pathogens which offspring will be more likely to encounter than foreign ones from foreign populations.
3.) His original post was about the stories of children raised by gay parents, then added in the other 2 links.
Which you seem to have completely overlooked.
You know, there is story about David Reimer. Where they used his story as a scientific study to back the nurture argument for transgenderism.
You should look into it and then tell me you still think the LGBT agenda is safe or should be normalized.
Also I BTFO to brush up on my lack of knowledge on the subject while leaving something else somewhat relevant.
Which you didnt address either.
The main reason why there are Christians who support the rights of homosexuals is because we are trying to follow the examples of Jesus when he dealt with people who were viewed as social outcasts due to their sins. There was a verse where he said: He who is forgiven less, loves less.
If you read the context of that line and it being an explanation to a parable, he is saying that the **highly religious, “all good” with God, stainless people – who have not “committed much” sins in need to be forgiven-- are narcissists.
If Jesus, the God of the Christians, himself treated the social outcasted sinners of that time with compassion and forgiveness then what more for his followers? That parable was an instruction that we are not allowed to think we a highly than other people regardless of living/following religious demanded lifestyles… the whole “he would has little sin cast the first stone”… some people are just trying to keep that in mind.
Note: I am not a devote or some strong religious church goer who likes to discuss/preach bible but there is a good reason why i still hold the beliefs and values i was taught and it’s not for the sake of making myself as high and mighty.
Someone mentioned Buddhism is against homosexuality. That isn’t 100 percent correct. It just says it is unskillful which means it doesn’t serve a a meaningful function in accordance to the goal of Nirvana. However there is nothing considered right or wrong since all views are ultimately wrong from the absolute perspective of Buddhism. Hinduism is even more complex because it is a collection of religious and spiritual traditions. You even have atheistic sects within the garb of Hinduism. The kama sutra has pro gay literature while other texts are against it. Again it depends all on the tradition within Hinduism. Vedic society was secular with debates etc the Christian missionaries were kind of confused by this. A lot of early Hindu/Buddhist texts have poor translations due to translators bias and sometimes just looking through the lens of Christianity.
That sex ed curriculum is disturbing, way too early for kids imo. Something people need to understand is this is what happens with the pornification of society when it meets with capitalism. Sex and advertising has to be the worst thing ever. We are creatures of habit and the subconscious records everything even if you yourself are not conscious of it. Some fetishes are harmless while others are downright screwed up. I’m not really in favour of transgenderism since I have no idea about the long term effects of these surgeries. TBH I was never a fan of cosmetic surgery unless people had severe birth defects or have been in an accident. Sometimes I feel like political correctness is apathy in disguise. We have to promote fullness within people rather than selling them the idea they lack something. You have people who were beautiful like Heidi Montag who turned into a cartoon character. Now is transgender and cosmetic surgeries a choice? Sure…but I don’t know if it is something I can encourage.
Gay parenting is an experiment and I believe some can be great parents but tbh I feel like a lot of them simply are looking for an experience. Rather than it being a real responsibility but we can say that about straight parents too. We are in a new age for sure and I’m not sure how this is going to play out. Stay the fuck away from that sex curriculum though holy shit. Congrats on people getting the right to get married.
I feel like a lot of these topics are something science has to figure out over the long term. There is so much we don’t know but at the same time our society is so sex obsessed. To me I don’t even think it is due to religion but the way sex and advertising works. Some tribal communities walk around nude and have very little sex. Since they are not bombarded with imagery every second. One finds out when they get older sex was never a big deal to begin with. More like a distraction from greater pleasures in life like walking through nature. Just my two cents.
I highly recommend this documentary. There is a Christian women who didn’t support her daughter coming out. She ended up committing suicide before her mother could talk to her again. She regrets what she said and started to educate herself on homosexuality. Since then she has been a strong advocate for gay rights. I really like Jesus teachings but one has to be honest with some of the outdated beliefs in the bible.
There are two ways to slice easily thorugh life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking. -Alfred Korzybski
Some of the greatest Christian saints and sages lived a contemplative life. They always contemplated and debated with themselves about what was right and wrong. Never any blind belief.
I do think that the encouraging of Transgenderism is completely wrong, i.e. the whole Bruce Jenner thing was just wrong to label as brave because it’s not. Gay parenting is very risky though, because if supporters are wrong about that working then that’s can be a very big penalty.
It is true that laws do change depending on the situations of society. There are various situations that can make a law change, both morally and naturally… it’s a huge wrestle on philosophy.
There was a long term mediator on reddit who admitted that his sexual preference was more open. He was more accepting and understanding of other lifestyle choices. A lot of it is societal conditioning but there is a very good reason for it. Centuries ago there was no medication or treatment for STD’s and the contraceptives were not at the level they were today. Also child deaths were common, so sex came with much more of a burden. TBH condoms don’t protect against STD’s but I’m betting a lot of people don’t know that.
My example directly refutes your original statement: “With mixed you run the risk of the offspring inheriting both sides of the recessive genes.” CF is a recessive disorder. It’s true that not every offspring will have CF (or anything close to 25%), but if 2 people of European descent produce an offspring, they have a a certain risk of that offspring being homozygous recessive and therefore have CF. There’s an even lower chance of getting CF if the offspring were interracial. How is that a misconception?
As for your second part, people travel and move all the time so “regional pathogens” holds little strength. What does it matter if 2 Mexican kids from New York marry one another when they live in New York? They’re not getting the same “regional pathogens” if they were in Mexico.
I ignored the personal stories because they are personal stories. I instead focused on the (supposedly) more objective scientific links, which turns out I believe have huge flaws in. But fine I’ll talk about those very subjective articles just to appease you. The main thing they talk about is “think of the children.” Really? So they want their parents to continue having a romantic relationship in secret because them being an official couple is not recognized by the government? Is that really any better? And if children really are the focus, why allow divorces in the first place? Obviously children don’t want their parents living in separate houses and have to choose which one they get to be with for the week. Why are people allowed to put their child in foster care and be messed up by having NO parental figures during crucial stages of life?
Last I checked, people aren’t picketing on the streets with signs that say “No anal sex” they are saying “No same sex marriage.” Anal sex does carry extra risk. But it’s not limited to just gay couples. gasp straight people do it too! Plus, people oppose female-female marriages too, which they obviously don’t have the anatomical appendages to perform anal sex.
I can’t complain too much, to be honest. “I yet live” gave me a chuckle (don’t mean to patronizing, just the phrasing is humorous to me), I apologize. I remember our discussions regarding Nihilism and I thoroughly enjoyed them. I hope things do change for the better for ya in the future.
First and foremost, before anyone claims (again) that I am just saying “SCIENCE WINS” again…
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? You seem to be, forgive if I am misinterpreting, stating that lesbian households are similar to single mother households. (There are obvious differences like, two parents with income will make things easier than one, for example) Where is the evidence behind this?
I, also, linked to the American Academy of Pediatrics to dispute your point about lesbian child-rearing. I asked if you had any reason as to why you don’t (and by extension, we shouldn’t) believe them, and I didn’t really see an answer. Is it fair to surmise that you don’t have one?
read my post, it seems you are only reading part of it, because I said it could happen, and happens more often than not. But it is still a significant issue that you hear in politics all the time.
Single mothers lack $$ for childcare to send kids to school early, thus putting those kids at a severe disadvantage which leads to increased crime, and shitty jobs for kids raised in single homes.
Yay, the SCOTUS did something constitutional and rational that gave consenting adults equal protection under the law regarding marriage. I didn’t think it was something more complicated than this, but it seems people are willing to die fighting a cause that they can’t quite seem to prove to be a bad thing. Oh well, sunrise, sunset.
