[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
snipped

So 'normal' is subjective, but that anyone else's take on 'normal' is somehow deficiant, or abnormal? So you don't think that normal is just different for everyone, and that there is no universal normal?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Like I said, people can try to justify it till the cows come home. It wont change the FACTS.

BTW I never said anything about NOT giving civil rights.

I was talking about normalcy.

Who decides what is normal? Can two males EVER produce a kid on their own? No.

And how is it different than race? Homosexuality and race can't be compared. One you can't change the other you can.

A black man and a white woman can indeed have children of their own.

It always cracks me up when people try to put race issues and sexual preference issues in the same boat.

Can homosexuality not stand own it's own merits? I guess not.

OK, it is all becoming clear now. You belive that homosexuality is a CHOICE that people make. What a load of crap. You have any references for that? The reason people use the race angle is to prove a point which you obviously do not get. The FACT as you state is that the same reasons people have AGAINST gay marriage are the same reasons people used against interracial marriages. That is why they are in "the same boat." What don't you understand about that?

And, if homosexuality is a choice people make (as you asserted above) I have a question for you. Why would ANYONE choose a lifestyle that puts them up to ridicule, violence, ostracism, etc.?

So being able to have children is your new criteria for a "normal" marriage. OK, what about a couple where the man or woman is infertile? No chance they can have a baby of their own. They shouldn't be allowed to get married under your idea of a normal marriage should they?

BTW, you still haven't answered my questions but I am enjoying your half thought out responses. I coherent response that actually addresses the questions posed to you will take more than 5 or 6 sentences.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
So 'normal' is subjective,

Actually I said the opposite. It wasn't subjective.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
my questions but I am enjoying your half thought out responses. I coherent response that actually addresses the questions posed to you will take more than 5 or 6 sentences.

That's the usual modus operandi of Zim.

To him homosexuality is a deviant aspect of life, that it is abnormal.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually I said the opposite. It wasn't subjective. [/B]

1) Do you consider it "normal" to have tea at noon?

2) Do you consider it "normal" for women to cover their entire bodies?

3) Do you consider it "normal" to sunbath in the nude?

4) Do you consider it "normal" to sleep all day and be out at night?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
That's the usual modus operandi of Zim.

To him homosexuality is a deviant aspect of life, that it is abnormal.

I know, I want him to prove it or at least defend it which he can't. No wonder he has over 20,000 posts, he posts drivel....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
OK, it is all becoming clear now. You belive that homosexuality is a CHOICE that people make. What a load of crap.

No I believe it can be changed.

You have any references for that?

Sure thing.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/spitzer3.html

The reason people use the race angle is to prove a point which you obviously do not get.

No, the reason why people use it is because homosexuality cannot stand up on it's own merits so they use the "race card"

Do a search, lots of African American leaders in this planet have come against such comparison. Calling it disrespectful to what their people went through.

The FACT as you state is that the same reasons people have AGAINST gay marriage are the same reasons people used against interracial marriages. That is why they are in "the same boat." What don't you understand about that?

No, no, not the same reasons. Marriage never said anything about race.

And, if homosexuality is a choice people make (as you asserted above) I have a question for you. Why would ANYONE choose a lifestyle that puts them up to ridicule, violence, ostracism, etc.?

Some people CHOOSE, some people don't. But it's not something that cannot be CHANGED. ANd why would anyone voluntarily put hooks in their back when they know they would get ridiculed for it?

So being able to have children is your new criteria for a "normal" marriage. OK, what about a couple where the man or woman is infertile? No chance they can have a baby of their own. They shouldn't be allowed to get married under your idea of a normal marriage should they?

You totally missed my point.

#1 I never said gay people shouldn't be able to get the same benefits as heterosexuals.
#2 With a man and a women, the chance is at least THERE. There is NO CHANCE to gay men are going to produce kids on their own.
#3 I was just arguing the "normalcy of it"

I am not against the gov giving gays equal rights. But I am not going to sit there and delude myself into believing it's the same. That would be lying to myself.

BTW, you still haven't answered my questions but I am enjoying your half thought out responses. I coherent response that actually addresses the questions posed to you will take more than 5 or 6 sentences.

I have. You just don't like the answers I am giving you.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually I said the opposite. It wasn't subjective. [/B]

It's not subjective? So, you said that some people's 'norm' meters are off, but that in itself is a subjective stance. It's your own concept of normal, that anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal. What refernce are you using to come to this conclusion, that your interpretation of homosexuality is the norm. Please remember that the norms of a society, and times they live in, change.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
It's not subjective? So, you said that some people's 'norm' meters are off, but that in itself is a subjective stance.

Not really. People delude themselves daily about what is normal and what isn't to make themselves feel better about their abnormal actions. This is called a self defense mechanism.

It's your own concept of normal, that anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with ME. But disagreeing with normality.

What refernce are you using to come to this conclusion, that your interpretation of homosexuality is the norm. Please remember that the norms of a society, and times they live in, change.

The reference on how nature works.

If nature wanted two men to have children, it would have made them be able to reproduce with each other.

This isn't the case. Therefore it is indeed abnormal.

No matter how badly some want to spin it.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Who decides what is normal?

the question is "why" we would decide whether something is normal or abnormal!

there is a REASON for norms, believe it or not.

"Conforming to a standard, lacking abnormalities or deficiencies."

again, - "who" makes these standards? why are they in place? and in what way does homosexuality constitute a "deficiency"?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
again, - "who" makes these standards? why are they in place? and in what way does homosexuality constitute a "deficiency"?

Can two homosexual males create a child on their own? No.

That is what makes them deficient when it comes to being parents.

That and there is studies saying that a male and female parent are really needed.

That is another reason I am against divorce when there is children involved.

In other words, a gay couple has chosen that lifestyle, and have chosen to accept everything that goes a long with it. They shouldn't be bringing in a kid that doesn't have the ability to make that choice to have to deal with everything that goes with it.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

Can two homosexual males create a child on their own? No.

That is what makes them deficient when it comes to being parents.

Can a sterile heterosexual couple create a child on their own? Also no. Do you therefore believe that they should not be permitted to adopt?

I ask because I have a difficult time seeing what one's fertility has to do with one's parenting skills, given that we do have alternative methods for parents to get children aside from making them on their own.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Zimphire--


Can a sterile heterosexual couple create a child on their own? Also no. Do you therefore believe that they should not be permitted to adopt?

Yes because of the whole male/female/child bond that many believe should be apart of a child's upbringing.

I ask because I have a difficult time seeing what one's fertility has to do with one's parenting skills, given that we do have alternative methods for parents to get children aside from making them on their own.

That part had to do with the normalcy argument.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Can two homosexual males create a child on their own? No.

Should monks be celibate? Who gives a toss. Societies are well equipped to handle change. If certain aspects of society decide to be homosexual, then that is the norm for them and those who agree. Just because they can't produce children, does not make them abnormal. You're using your standard definition of what you think is normal, and using the children example to justify it.

Soo, not being able to produce together (homosexual couples), does not make them abnormal. It just means we are evolving and adapt to the changes. There's plenty of children from broken homes who could find a comfortable one in a homsexual home.

[Ghoser777]

Playing Devil's Advocate, from a biological standpoint, it wouldn't seem to matter that the parents cannot reproduce because of some defect (infertility, what not). All that matters is that the parents are equiped in other ways to best take care of a child. So the reproduction aspect of it is only so that the kids are ending up in a male-female parent situation, not that it's important once the kid ends up in such a situation.

Once again, playing DA. I think there's been plenty of studies that children of homosexual parents turn out just fine.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Should monks be celibate? Who gives a toss. Societies are well equipped to handle change. If certain aspects of society decide to be homosexual, then that is the norm for them and those who agree.

It is the norm for them right. But that doesn't make it normal. People who put hooks in their backs, that's the norm for them. But it certainly isn't normal.

Just because they can't produce children, does not make them abnormal.

Right, and I never said that. I said because they cannot produce children, them trying to artificially act as a man/woman makes it abnormal.

Soo, not being able to produce together (homosexual couples), does not make them abnormal. It just means we are evolving and adapt to the changes.

Nature isn't evolving to adapt changes. SOME humans are making excuses for their actions, trying to justify them as being normal when they are not.

There's plenty of children from broken homes who could find a comfortable one in a homsexual home.

And there are plenty of children from broken homes that would probably be better suited in a home where there was both a male and female parent.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:

Once again, playing DA. I think there's been plenty of studies that children of homosexual parents turn out just fine.

And I have read studies that some children of homosexual parents turn out confused about their sexual identity.

Just like how some children are deeply effected by divorce.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:

Once again, playing DA. I think there's been plenty of studies that children of homosexual parents turn out just fine.

I'd agree with that. The ideal, to some, and thus the norm would be for the mother/father role. But as life shows us, that is far from what happens, so how what happens? Do we then call single parents 'abnormal' with all that goes with that term just because their is no other parent involved? Likewise, if a homosexual couple are well equipped to raise a child, then why are some saying they are abnormal?

there is no ideal that can stand up to the test of life itself, so we should embrace the varying situations that children are put into to, and thus be not prejudiced by means of cruel put downs.

[Luca Rescigno]

whoops, should have actually read page 2 before posting...

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Can two homosexual males create a child on their own? No.

Neither can sterile couples. But since you replied "Yes because of the whole male/female/child bond that many believe should be apart of a child's upbringing. " that means you don't consider the physical ability to have children to be a factor. Since you don't, why did you bring it up?

That is what makes them deficient when it comes to being parents.

According to you it doesn't. See above.

That and there is studies saying that a male and female parent are really needed.

Millions of successful people raised by single parents disagree with your "studies."

That is another reason I am against divorce when there is children involved.

You would rather parents who can't stand each other to fight, yell, and scream in front of the child than to face facts and split up? If a father is abusive and alcoholic, they should stay together "for the sake of the kids." Do you have any experience in this matter?

I knew a Catholic priest who was against divorce - until his sister married a guy who became abusive and controlling - after the wedding. The priest has since changed his tune. He learned that not all marriages end up happy. Couples that aren't meant to be together but do it "for the kids" makes it even harder on the kids than if they just split up.

In other words, a gay couple has chosen that lifestyle, and have chosen to accept everything that goes a long with it. They shouldn't be bringing in a kid that doesn't have the ability to make that choice to have to deal with everything that goes with it.

What choice are you talking about? What "lifestyle" are you talking about? Let me guess, your extensive research into this consisted of watching The Birdcage.

[OSX Abuser]

Let them marry. Why do people consider it such a threat to the sanctity of marriage??

The only restriction should be age, nothing more nothing less.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Neither can sterile couples. But since you replied "Yes because of the whole male/female/child bond that many believe should be apart of a child's upbringing. " that means you don't consider the physical ability to have children to be a factor. Since you don't, why did you bring it up?

AGAIN, I wasn't arguing since they couldn't have children they shouldn't. READ. I was talking about normality. Something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

According to you it doesn't. See above.

No, you just took what I said out of context.

Millions of successful people raised by single parents disagree with your "studies."

I never said they couldn't be successful.

You would rather parents who can't stand each other to fight, yell, and scream in front of the child than to face facts and split up?

No I expect those people not to do it in front of the children. That is what being an adult is about. Too many self centered people that are just concerned with what THEY want. Unless of course one of the spouses are abusive, then that is a different story.

I knew a Catholic priest who was against divorce - until his sister married a guy who became abusive and controlling - after the wedding. The priest has since changed his tune. He learned that not all marriages end up happy. Couples that aren't meant to be together but do it "for the kids" makes it even harder on the kids than if they just split up.

Again, having someone that is abusive wont help in a relationship at all. I am speaking about the divorces people get out of 'boredom" or "I think it's time to move on"

What choice are you talking about? What "lifestyle" are you talking about?

You know one can be homosexual and not lead a homosexual life. They aren't forced to have sex with people of the same sex. And now we know sexual attraction CAN be changed.

Let me guess, your extensive research into this consisted of watching The Birdcage.

Take a look at the link I posted above.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/spitzer3.html

Many ex-homosexuals coming out saying they are more happy now that they are no longer homosexual.

Backed up by facts!

How about that.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Historic Gay Advocate Now Believes Change is Possible

The psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may sometimes be changeable.

His provocative new study drew worldwide media attention at the American Psychiatric Association's annual conference on May 9th.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer's study was funded by his department's research unit. He is Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University.

"Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change."

Most mental-health associations have recently issued warnings about therapy to change sexual orientation. Homosexual fantasies and feelings can be renounced or resisted, most clinicians agree--but not transformed.

But in a panel discussion at the annual A.P.A. meeting, Spitzer released the evidence for his conclusions.

Dr. Spitzer is best recognized in psychiatric history for his scientific role in 1973--he led the team that investigated whether homosexuality should be removed from the psychiatric manual. He drew bitter criticism during that historic event from psychoanalysts who sought to retain homosexuality among the list of disorders. Since then, Dr. Spitzer had been convinced that sexual orientation is unchangeable.

But on the opening day of the American Psychiatric Association's annual conference two years ago--in 1999--he was drawn to a group of ex-gays staging a demonstration at the entrance to the conference building.

The picketers were objecting to the A.P.A.'s recent resolution discouraging therapy to change homosexuality to heterosexuality. They carried placards saying, "Homosexuals Can Change--We Did--Ask Us!"

Others said, "Don't Affirm Me into a Lifestyle that was Killing Me Physically and Spiritually," and "The APA Has Betrayed America with Politically Correct Science."

Some of the psychiatrists tore up the literature handed out to them by the protesters. But others stopped to offer the protestors a few quiet words of encouragement.

"Contrary to conventioned wisdom," Spitzer concluded, "some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning.

Dr. Spitzer agreed that this study should not be used to justify coercion. Nor should it be used as an argument for the denial of civil rights. "But patients should have the right," Spitzer stated, "to explore their heterosexual potential."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OSX Abuser:
Let them marry. Why do people consider it such a threat to the sanctity of marriage??

No one is arguing about giving them equal rights.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

Yes because of the whole male/female/child bond that many believe should be apart of a child's upbringing.

Well, wait just a second here.

You said that same sex couples shouldn't adopt because they were biologically incapable of having children with one another.

Now you're saying that opposite sex couples shouldn't adopt if they are biologically incapable of having children with one another.

Your reason appears to be that you do not believe that it is possible to raise a child unless it is biologically YOUR child.

So aren't you really saying that there should simply be no adoption whatsoever? After all, if couple A is incapable of having children but adopts, and couple B is capable of having children but adopts, neither couple A nor B can possibly have a biological bond with the child. And that's the only bond they'd be lacking, all else being equal.

I think that's a very extreme position to adopt, no pun intended. Particularly if you're against abortion, since you are evidently saying that it is better for children to be raised in orphanages than to be adopted because they cannot have a PERFECT parent/child relationship (which you feel is based on genetics, not behavior).

I at least would promote adoption by ANYONE that could do a decent job of raising a child and was willing to do it, on the belief that a) the relationship might be better than with the parent that gave up the child, and b) that it's better than nothing.

I don't want to see you backtrack on this either. If you want to amend your comment, I expect you to amend your positions on adoption by all three groups identified here: opposite sex able to reproduce, opposite sex unable to reproduce together, same sex unable to reproduce together so as to have a consistant position as to this particular criteria.

In short, I expect you to either continue to look like a kook that would condemn kids to state-run orphanages or to admit that reproductive ability is not a criteria for suitability as adoptive parents.

No one is arguing about giving them equal rights

I am. And I'm not saying we need to _give_ same sex couples equal rights. I think they HAVE equal rights. I'm saying we need to stop denying them their equal right to marry the consenting partner of their choice.

Same sex marriage is about absolutely nothing OTHER than equal rights and substantive due process. That's the entire deal.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No I expect those people not to do it in front of the children. That is what being an adult is about. Too many self centered people that are just concerned with what THEY want. Unless of course one of the spouses are abusive, then that is a different story.

So go fight against that instead. It's a lot worse than having two mommies or two daddies.

Again, having someone that is abusive wont help in a relationship at all. I am speaking about the divorces people get out of 'boredom" or "I think it's time to move on"

Actually you didn't say that. You only said people with children shouldn't divorce.

You know one can be homosexual and not lead a homosexual life. They aren't forced to have sex with people of the same sex. And now we know sexual attraction CAN be changed.

Uh huh...

Take a look at the link I posted above.
Many ex-homosexuals coming out saying they are more happy now that they are no longer homosexual.

Backed up by facts!

How about that.

I wouldn't call those facts. I call that getting people to go along with a predetermined hypothesis.

There are a lot worse family problems that homosexual parents. If you really care about the kids, go fight against abuse, alcoholism, etc. - stuff that happens to heterosexual couples too.

[Stradlater]

And now for a link that addresses the first post:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Orson Scott Card is a pretty famous writer in certain circles, and a devout mormon, these are his thoughts.</impartial>

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
And now for a link that addresses the first post:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Orson Scott Card is a pretty famous writer in certain circles, and a devout mormon, these are his thoughts.</impartial>

There's nothing in that article that is impartial, and there's nothing in that article except for the same old tired fear mongering and irrational scare tactics used to set people against homosexuals.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by KarlG:
There's nothing in that article that is impartial, and there's nothing in that article except for the same old tired fear mongering and irrational scare tactics used to set people against homosexuals.

The "/impartial" was my own; I don't agree with the man, just offering his words for discussion.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Can two homosexual males create a child on their own? No.

so? what a child needs are good role models and attention. it's a lot better to raise a child with two males or two females, than raising a child in, let's say, a broken home or abuisve situation. there have been quite a few cases now where children were raised by homosexual couples and turned out perfectly HEALTHY and PRODUCTIVE citizens. so your point is mute. sorry, try again.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That and there is studies saying that a male and female parent are really needed.

bullsh1t. there are studies that claim the earth is flat. the majority of cases show that children raised in a same sex marriage turn out perfectly fine.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
In other words, a gay couple has chosen that lifestyle, and have chosen to accept everything that goes a long with it. They shouldn't be bringing in a kid that doesn't have the ability to make that choice to have to deal with everything that goes with it.

well, then neither should heterosexual couples, since the kid NEVER choses its parents.

again, homosexuality IN NO WAY constitutes a pathology, and gay couples (as a rule) are perfectly fit to raise HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE and "NORMAL" citizens. and that's a FACT!